Russia Commences Construction of Floating Nuclear Power Plants

SEVERODVINSK (northern Russia), April 15 - Russia has launched the construction of floating nuclear power plants said Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia's nuclear power agency.

Kiriyenko said the first floating nuclear power plant, to be named after the great Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov, will have a capacity of 70 megawatts of electricity and about 300 megawatts of thermal power.

Floating nuclear power plants can operate without fuel reload for 12-15 years and have enhanced radiation protection.

Floating NPPs are expected to be widely used in regions that experience a shortage of energy and also in the implementation of projects requiring standalone and uninterrupted energy supply in the absence of a development power system.

Source: RIA Noesti via Peak Oil News & Message Boards

Comments

[GreyFlcn]

"No really it's safe! We're just going to put it as far away from civilization as possible."

[Kit P.]

Floating NPPs are nothing new. Would you like a list of large American cities that have several?

[George]

Yes, Kit. Could you provide that?

[Iain]

Kit, allow me to answer George;

Newport News, San Diego, Pearl Harbour, Philedelphia... and anywhere else there is a US navy base.

[Bill Hannahan]

A facility to build floating nuclear power plants was actually built in the US, in the 70’s, for details see,

http://www.atomicinsights.com/aug96/Offshore.html

Had we put this facility into full production we could be generating about half our electricity with nuclear, saving several thousand lives each year

http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower/docs/dirtyAir.pdf

and dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Robert Palgrave]

There is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the US because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.

I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

CSP works best in hot deserts and it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US "could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or about seven times the current total US electric capacity".

In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.

Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .

[Ronald Brak]

Kit P, if I'm not mistaken, don't U.S. floating nuclear plants typically take power from the grid while in dock instead of adding to it?

[Kit P.]

Robert is correct. The US does not need nuclear, we have lots of coal.

The US Navy and commercial nuclear power has safely demonstrated for 50 years that we can produce electricity any time, any place.

I have no problems with the American Solar Energy Society producing as much electricity as they can.

The problem is that Robert want others to make electricity for them. Assuming Robert lives in the US, he is free to more to the desert and make electricity.

My electricity is 99.2 % coal and nuclear. I am very happy about that especially when the bill has to be paid.

[amazingdrx]

The benevolent russian mob will certainly be very careful with these floating chernobyls. Pooty-poot is a doing a heckuva job! (to put it in terms the faithfilled will understand)

Can't put any wind or wave machines off the coast, too many NIMBYs. But floating chernobyls? Bring 'em on!

[Kit P.]

You want to invest in wind or wave machines off the coast of Russia, I am sure that Putin will let you.

[marcus]

So Kit P. you don't have any concerns regarding CO2 and coal?
ps ok, I've taken the bait.

[GAB]

Considering the ability of Russian subs to float, floating reactors scare me. I guess if the reator starts to melt down they can just scuttle and and stop a Chernobyl from happening.

Poor Poor fishies.

[Nucbuddy]

GAB,

A submarine is not a barge.

The Chernobyl incident was not a major industrial disaster, and remains the single best item of evidence of the safety of nuclear power.
world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

[marcus]

"The Chernobyl incident was not a major industrial disaster, and remains the single best item of evidence of the safety of nuclear power."

C'mon, that's stretching things just a little.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

[Kit P.]

Protecting children from I-131 is pretty easy to do. Some Russian engineers should be hung by their thumbs.

It is likely that words like disaster, catastrophe, and dangerous must have a different meaning to some. With respect to AGW, I am certainly more concerned than Al Gore, Marcus, and amazingdrx. While many enjoy the drama of impending doom, their lifestyle tells me they are not very concerned. If you are concerned about something, you study the issue and identify appropriate and effective solutions. Since I understand how electricity is produced, I am careful how I use it.

[marcus]

Kit P., why do you think you are more concerned than me? What do you know about my lifestyle? You seemed to suggest you are quite happy with your coal produced power - prefering it to importing solar power from elsewhere. Seems a little incongruous to me.

[marcus]

In the end, judging by your comments Kit P., you are not someone I really want to keep communicating with. I guess you must be finding some kind of satisfaction in your fantasy of superiority. Have fun while it lasts.

[Kit P.]

Marcus, what solar would you like me to import and do you have some data to show that it has less environmental impact? There is none and you have no data. Yes, I prefer anything over solar because I do not see solar as green where I live.

When I lived in California, I installed solar and used passive solar for heating.

[Reality Czech]

Kit P. is just a troll.  He should be dismissed with snarky responses to his absurd assertions.