Slashdot Mirror


Russia Launches Floating Nuclear Power Plant That's Headed To the Arctic (npr.org)

Russia's state nuclear corporation Rosatom launched a massive floating nuclear power plant over the weekend. It's the first nuclear power plant of its kind and it's headed to an Arctic port, reports NPR. From the report: Called the Akademik Lomonosov, the floating power plant is being towed at a creeping pace out of St. Petersburg, where it was built over the last nine years. It will eventually be brought northward, to Murmansk -- where its two nuclear reactors will be loaded with nuclear fuel and started up this fall. From there, the power plant will be pulled to a mooring berth in the Arctic port of Pevek, in far northeast Russia. There, it will be wired into the infrastructure so it can replace an existing nuclear power installment on land. Russian officials say the mandate of the Akademik Lomonoso is to supply energy to remote industrial plants and port cities, and to offshore gas and oil platforms.

It will take more than a year for the power plant to reach its new home port. The original plan had called for fueling the floating plant before it began that journey, at the shipyard in central St. Petersburg -- but that was scuttled last summer, after concerns were raised both in Russia and in countries along the power plant's route through the Baltic Sea and north to the Arctic. "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."

13 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. US has them beat... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Informative

    The US had a nuclear power plant on a barge in the Panama Canal Zone in the 60s and 70s.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    US also had a few "portable" land-based reactors powering military bases and a station in Antarctica.

    1. Re:US has them beat... by rilister · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, I can go one further than that: the Convair X-6 (1955-57) was a fully-functioning nuclear-powered bomber *airplane* that was flight-tested but never operationalized:

      "The NTA completed 47 test flights and 215 hours of flight time (during 89 of which the reactor was operated) between September 17, 1955, and March 1957[2] over New Mexico and Texas. This was the only known airborne reactor experiment by the U.S. with an operational nuclear reactor on board."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    2. Re:US has them beat... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would guess that permanent nuclear flight leave you with issues related to internal part heat.

      The Atomic airplane is a fascinating bit of early cold war history. They came fairly close to making it work. It was eventually scuttled because the open cycle design irradiated everything in it's path, the radiation inside the plane, while being attenuated by shadow shielding, caused them to consider using older crew who would be expected to die of other causes before radiation caused leukemia took them out, and of course what would happen in the event of a crash. Even landing presented problems, as landing weight would be the same as takeoff weight.

      Fortunately saner minds and ICBM's made the A-Plane unnecessary.

      Then if you really want to freak out, research SLAM. A reactor powered cruise missile running open cycle at treetop level. You can guess the side effects of that.

      The technogeek in me finds this stuff fascinating. The practical me asks "What the fuck were they thinking?"

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Yes Comrade by zamboni1138 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We are head to the Arctic.

    1. Re:Yes Comrade by Drishmung · · Score: 4, Funny

      All your base are belong to us.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  3. Actually this is a pretty old idea. by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    In 1961 US Army converted an old Liberty ship called the SS Charles H Cugle into a floating power plant back in 1961, pretty much with exactly the purpose: to provide a mobile electricity generation station for remote areas. The newly renamed MH-1A Sturgis was towed to the Panama Canal Zone from 1968 to 1975, then mothballed.

    The Russian project is much more powerful, employing a pair of nuclear icebreaker reactors to generate a total of 140 MW, 14x the power of the old Sturgis. to obtain this kind of power in a compact ship-borne package, the KLT-40 reactors use nearly more highly enriched uranium than is typical in land based reactors: 40% to 90% rather than 3%-5%.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Actually this is a pretty old idea. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The other key difference here is the use of waste heat for remote central heating. I'm not sure how they do it in North America but in Europe and Russia many places have dedicated district area central heating plants, either fueled by waste reprocessing, cogeneration on the back of power plants, or in some horrid cases, standalone. By combining it with the power plant you get massive increases in efficiency from the fuel source as you can repurpose waste heat that is too cool to generate power, and put it to use for heating systems.

      Also information is all over the place. That Wikipedia article says the KLT-40S used in this installation needs 14% enriched uranium.
      An article from Power Technology says it uses KLT-40C which combined generate 300MW of heat. https://www.power-technology.c...

    2. Re:Actually this is a pretty old idea. by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In 1961 US Army converted an old Liberty ship called the SS Charles H Cugle into a floating power plant back in 1961, pretty much with exactly the purpose: to provide a mobile electricity generation station for remote areas.

      Too bad we don't have a few of these in operation. It would be really helpful to have them to park off of Puerto Rico.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. Re:Bad facts in article by Shinobi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, it's meaningful, because it means it'll be hooked up to the remote heating system for the small community, so serving a double utility role, and saves them from building a separate gas, coal or oil fired plant for that role.

  5. Re:That's head to the Arctic by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Russian nuclear icebreakers such as "Fifty Years of Victory" have been taking tourists to the North Pole during the Northern summer for over a decade now. They're only really needed for serious icebreaking during the winter around the northern coasts. They use the same KLT-35 reactors as the floating power barge mentioned in the article.

    A major reason for this project is to supply electricity and heat to communities on the northern coasts supporting oil and gas exploration efforts in the Arctic. The Chinese are looking at similar floating nuclear power plants to provide electricity for the artificial islands they're constructing in the South China Sea as well as developing their own nuclear naval capabilities. They're not actually building anything yet though.

  6. Re:That's head to the Arctic by markdavis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, it is amazing how poor some of the Slashdot headlines are now. They are full of grammatical mistakes, unnecessary contractions, inconsistent uppercasing, and often just misleading. This is probably what was meant:

    "Russia Launches a Floating Nuclear Power Plant Headed for the Arctic"

    This one from several hours ago:

    "Comcast Won't Give New Speed Boost To Internet Users Who Don't Buy TV Service"

    Uses two negative constructs. Would be far better as:

    "Comcast gives new speed boost only to Internet users who also buy TV service"

  7. Brilliant. by rew · · Score: 3, Funny

    So when something unexpected happend, like a few years back in Japan, you don't have the waste slowly seeping through the ground possibliy a little bit leaking into the ocean, but when something bad happens, the all the radioactive stuff is immediately in the water and you have a global problem. Nothing to worry about. We've thought about everything.... Right!

  8. Re:Sea by ixuzus · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's just as well there are no ocean currents which could carry irradiated water away from the sunken reactor.