Sorry Russia, it's already been done. See USS Enterprise, CVN-65.
Posted on 04/15/2007 7:21:31 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
MOSCOW - Russia began construction of its first floating nuclear power plant Sunday, and plans to build at least six more despite long-standing environmental concerns that they are vulnerable to accidents at sea, Russian news agencies reported.
Russia justifies the program as a way of bringing power to some of the country's most remote areas, also saying some of the plants could be sold to other nations.
The head of Russia's atomic energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, said the plants will be safe.
"This plant is much safer than atomic energy stations on the ground," the RIA-Novosti news agency quoted him as saying at a formal ceremony at the Sevmash fabricating plant in Severodvinsk on the White Sea coast.
He cited the 2000 sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk as evidence of the reliability of the plants, which will use reactors similar to those on the submarine.
"After the boat was raised, specialists proved that the reactor could be put into service that very moment," he said, according to RIA-Novosti.
The atomic energy agency and Sevmash on Sunday signed a document on their intent to build six more floating power plants, the ITAR-Tass news agency said.
It cited the atomic energy agency as saying that talks were under way on selling the plants to unspecified Asian and African countries as well as to Russian regions.
In my ignorance, this sounds like a pretty good idea. A well-proven compact reactor design that can go anywhere it can be floated. Originally put together to bring electricity to siberian coastal communitites it sounds like just the ticket for disaster areas (post-Katrina Gulf communities?) or even military excursions. I’ll bet they could have used one at Normandy post D-day.
You can't make this stuff up.
This makes good business sense. Build ‘em in Russia where the environazis are jailed if they protest too much, then sail them to anchor outside areas that idiotically restrict their own electricity production, such as LA and San Fran.
Sell power right from the dock, and the ships can’t be banned from going into the harbors due to existing international treaties.
If this story isn’t satire or false propaganda, these floating power plants will all need to be sunk before they are delivered.
You won’t have to hire ILWU labor that way either.
Sorry Russia, it's already been done. See USS Enterprise, CVN-65.
Russia To Build Floating Nuclear Plant
Moscow (UPI) May 26, 2005
FR Search results for
Russia building 1st floating nuke plant
For a number of reasons, it is a good idea.
I have been wondering for some time why we couldnt use the power from Nuclear Subs that get old to provide power for cities with harbors.
We have subs and Aircraft carriers powered by nuclear plants that could easily be plugged into the grid instaed of sold for salvage. If they cant then so be it, but I was wondering why they couldnt.
I agree. And IIRC, there's precious little you and I agree on, so if we agree on this, we must be right :-)
Seriously, how long will it take for al-Qaeda to arrange to hijack one of these of things and put it to other uses? And sinking them doesn't sound like permanent solution -- we'd have to fetch the relevant parts up again and haul off for safekeeping. In time, they'd corrode and leak down on the ocean floor (and much faster if they had "help"). The Kursk reactor (which was only big enough to power one sub) was raised a very short time after it sank, and it wouldn't have been safe to leave it down there. And it was travelling underwater most of the time, making it difficult to dive-bomb it with a hijacked jetliner -- that wouldn't be true of these floating reactors.
Maybe so
But when was the last time a land based power plant broke it’s moorings in a storm and was lost at sea?
A nuclear power plant is a big investment to loose because it is at the bottom of the ocean.
That’s eight power plants on one platform.
The US Navy has accumulated over 5500 reactor years of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships (with 103 reactors as of early 2005). These ships could provide emergency power to coastal cities.
The Russians are not known for their reactor containments. Point being Chernobyl.
I would want to know a lot about their reactor safety features before buying one.
Pay no attention to the three-headed dolphins lol.
Seriously though, this is a horrible idea. A land-based nuke reactor has the advantage of not being moveable. If a large group of terrorists hijacked one of these, the damage they could cause by bringing it close to shore and intentionally triggering a meltdown would be catastrophic. Even if they didn’t do that, they could still use the fuel for nuclear weapons, and a ships easier to attack in some ways than a country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.