Russia floating nuclear power station sets sail across Arctic

[Balu]

Russia floating nuclear power station sets sail across Arctic





Image copyright Reuters

Image caption The Akademik Lomonosov sailed away from Murmansk with three tugs Russia has launched a pioneering floating nuclear power station, which will sail 5,000km (3,000 miles) from the Arctic port of Murmansk to Chukotka in the far east.
The nuclear agency Rosenergoatom says the Akademik Lomonosov's mobility will boost the power supply to remote areas.
One of its targets is to power the Chaun-Bilibin mining complex in Chukotka, which includes gold mines.
Greenpeace sees the project as high-risk, in a harsh weather environment.
Critics including Greenpeace point to previous Russian and Soviet nuclear accidents and warn that the Akademik Lomonosov's mission increases the risk of polluting the Arctic - a remote, sparsely-populated region with no big clean-up facilities.


The launch comes just two weeks after a nuclear-powered engine blew up on a Russian naval test range in the Arctic, killing five nuclear engineers and releasing radiation, though the 1986 Chernobyl disaster was far worse.

The floating power station's highly radioactive spent fuel will be stored on board. Others of similar design will follow to serve remote areas.

The Akademik Lomonosov is also destined to supply electricity to offshore oil rigs in Russia's Arctic. Another idea is to hook it up to a desalination plant, to produce fresh water, and in future island states could benefit from such power stations.
The Northern Sea Route connecting European Russia with far eastern ports is becoming navigable for longer periods because global warming is reducing pack ice.

• Will global warming open up Arctic trade?
• Container ship takes on Arctic sea route
• Russia unveils new Arctic military base

Three tugs will tow the facility to Pevek, where it is expected to dock in late September. In good weather conditions it will sail at 4-5 knots (7-9km/h).
The Lomonosov was built in St Petersburg and has two nuclear reactors of the type used in Russian icebreakers. They are KLT-40S reactors with a combined capacity of 80 megawatts, and are reported to be tsunami-proof.
Russia's Vesti news programme says the facility will have enough power to illuminate and heat a town of about 100,000 inhabitants. The crew on board is expected to be about 70-strong.
It is 140m (459ft) long, 30m (98ft) wide and is expected to operate for 40 years.
In the period 1968-1976 the US Army used a floating nuclear power plant at the Panama Canal, for canal operations, called the MH-1A Sturgis. It was a converted World War Two cargo ship, and was later decommissioned.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Since this May 2018 photo was taken the Akademik Lomonosov has been totally repainted Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The central control room aboard the floating power plant
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49446235

Not bad.

[Balu]

Russia’s Floating Nuclear Power Station Expected to Change the Arctic

Imagine two football pitches joined together. Now picture them floating out to sea. And then you have the Akademik Lomonosov. The Akademik Lomonosov is a massive floating nuclear power plant (FNPP), run by Russia’s Rosatom, which is set for launch later this week. More than that, though, it represents a significant milestone for nuclear power development and also confirms Russia’s leading position in it.
Its marathon 5,000 km journey along the Arctic coast to Chukotka, the most remote and extreme in Russia’s weather regions, begins this Friday when the twin-reactor plant is towed from Murmansk to the tiny port of Pevek on the Russian Far East coastline of the Arctic Ocean. Once there it will rest offshore and will begin pumping out electricity as the world’s northernmost nuclear power station.
Russia’s first-ever floating nuclear power plant has already made headlines in the West and has not escaped criticism from environmental advocates such as Greenpeace who argue it might have been cheaper to invest the money in the development of renewable energy in the region rather than sustaining a floating power plant.
But comparing the FNNP to Chernobyl, as Greenpeace has, is a “scare tactic” says Dale Klein, the former head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under President George W. Bush. “It’s just to make people think about an accident of some kind. It has no basis in science and it’s really just meant to scare people when you use those kinds of statements,” he said.
Experts say that a wind power alternative has its drawbacks. “Wind power generators are effective for powering particular households but won’t be able to supply electricity to the whole region on an industrial scale,” claims Petr Pushkaryov, a chief analyst at TeleTrade.
“The main advantage of this plant is in its mobility and ability to work for 15 years without rest. Plus, there will be no radioactive waste on land after its exploitation,” said Gaidar Gasanov, an expert at the International Financial Centre.
The 472 foot long platform, equipped with two KLT-40 nuclear reactors, can produce up to 70 megawatts (MW) of electricity and 50 Gcal/h of thermal power. That’s enough to supply energy to 100,000 inhabitants – equal to around seven percent of what a large commercial reactor in the U.S. typically produces.
Its keenly-awaited launch this week comes amid an international scramble for new territory, the likes of which the world hasn’t witnessed since the 18th century. The Akademik Lomonosov is, in fact, part of Russia’s broader strategy of taking advantage of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic. It wants to position itself as the ‘gatekeeper’ for the expected explosion of shipping routes through the rapidly expanding waterway on its northern border with the Arctic Ocean.


(sputnik)


With a minimum 40-year life cycle, the Akademik Lomonosov – named after 18th-century Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov – was commissioned by Rosenergoatom (a division of Rosatom) and designed by Russian atomic scientists and naval architects. It features cutting edge safety and security systems and, if successful, will represent another milestone in Moscow’s efforts to tame the melting Northern Sea Route, which, largely as a result of climate change, could become a direct trade route between Europe and Asia.

Russia, which already has extensive experience in building nuclear icebreakers and nuclear submarines, has been pursuing its ‘experiment’ in floating nuclear power, confounding critics who said the plant was an expensive publicity stunt that was doomed to fail.
Arctic sea ice levels have reduced by 40 percent since the late 1970s, opening up the northern sea route as a transport artery, and the vessel is seen as a ‘cure-all’ for the energy woes of the world’s more remote regions.
The media have been granted numerous tours of the vessel and even groups like The Bellona Foundation, which covers environmental issues in the Arctic region and has voiced reservations, has welcomed what it calls “the spirit of openness” during the plant’s path to deployment and Rosatom’s efforts to be transparent about its endeavours.
The whole idea of a floating nuclear plant has triggered not only curiosity but competition. Two state-backed companies in China are said to be pursuing plans for at least 20 floating nuclear plants while American scientists have drawn up blueprints of their own. However, it must be said that this isn’t the first floating nuclear power plant. During the 1960s, the United States maintained a floating nuclear plant in the Panama Canal.
It’s estimated that two-thirds of Russia’s oil and gas reserves are in its Arctic exclusive economic zone and the region accounts for 20 percent of the nation’s GDP. Use of the Arctic would cut the shipping time from Europe to China by 40 percent. Russia’s two-pronged Arctic strategy is thus to reap the benefits of resource extraction and increased shipping.
A World Nuclear Association report describes the “enormous potential” of such nuclear reactors and Rosatom echoes these claims, citing the added benefit of bringing “economic development to remote and hard-to-reach territories.”
Rosatom says that a floating nuclear reactor is perfect for the Russian Arctic and that the future of Chukotka region’s inhabitants hinges on the project. Once up and running, it will replace an aging coal-fired power plant, saving about 500,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year compared to fossil fuels alternatives.
The company argues that the power unit will “contribute to the sustainable development of the Arctic region and to the fight against climate change by offering zero-carbon electricity generation and replacing heavy polluting fossil-fuel power sources.”
A source at the European Commission in Brussels says that considering the growing demand for electricity globally and the need to be able to supply it where and when it is needed, the future for FNPPs “looks bright” due to their growing popularity as a “mobile, safe and self-contained” source of low-carbon energy. “In addition to power generation, FNPPs can also contribute to solving other important issues that remain high on many countries’ agendas, such as freshwater deficiency, a problem especially pressing in arid desert regions of the Middle East,” said the EU source.
The aim, he said, is to enable “reliable, safe and affordable” energy and ensure sustainable development of the key industries in the destination region.
FNPPs produces no CO2 or other polluting emissions and upon decommissioning, Akademik Lomonosov will be towed to a special deconstruction and recycling facility. No spent nuclear fuel or radioactive waste is planned to be left in the Arctic and spent fuel will be taken to special storage facilities on mainland Russia.
Optimized floating power unit (OFPU) developed by Rosatom and based on Akademik Lomonosov technology, have the potential to work particularly well in regions with extended coastlines, power supply shortages and limited access to electrical grids. The plant can be delivered to any point along a coast and connected to existing electrical grids. These points, it is argued, make OFPU a “unique proposal” on the world’s nuclear market and some countries from the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America have already entered negotiations about buying such a unit.
Rosatom is already working on next-generation FPUs, or OFPUs, which will be equipped with two RITM-200M reactors (each with a capacity of 50 MWe).
Oscar Voss, of the University of Aberdeen, says all this does not exist in isolation, pointing out that the Russian government is intent on developing its Arctic zone, a region whose thawing ice has presented the country (and others) with exciting new opportunities.
Clearly, the Lomonosov is a significant part of that effort.

https://intpolicydigest.org/2019/08/...ge-the-arctic/

[Kathianne]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/europ...ntl/index.html

Why would anyone want Russian nuclear plant floating in the seas or close to their country, they have an established history of being irresponsible in maintaining equipment and being honest and transparent when they have failures.

Russia launches 'floating Chernobyl' plant across Arctic
By Mary Ilyushina, CNN


Updated 11:58 AM ET, Fri August 23, 2019

​(CNN)Russia on Friday launched a controversial floating nuclear reactoron a nearly 3,100-mile voyage across the Arctic Sea from the port of Murmansk.Loaded with nuclear fuel, the Akademik Lomonosov with three tug vessels is set to reach the port of Pevek in 4 to 6 weeks. But the maiden voyage comes amid concerns from environmentalists that have only heightened after a recent botched missile test which led to a radiation spike in a town in the same northern region as Murmansk.



Lomonosov is part of a plan to bring electric power to one of Russia's most remote regions. The 144-meter (472 feet) long platform, painted in the colors of the Russian flag, is going to supply electricity to settlements and companies extracting hydrocarbons and precious stones in the Chukotka area.
A larger agenda is at work, too: aiding President Vladimir Putin's ambitious Arctic expansion plans, which have raised concerns about a larger geopolitical contest. Likhachev, CEO of Rosatom which is in charge of the project, said at a ceremony in Murmansk that Lomonosov will "amount to a significant contribution to creating an Arctic future that is both sustainable and prosperous."

View outside of Akademik Lomonosov's main deck.




The Akademik Lomonosov will be the northernmost operating nuclear plant in the world, and it's key to plans to develop the region economically. About 2 million Russians reside near the Arctic coast in villages and towns similar to Pevek, settlements that are often reachable only by plane or ship, if the weather permits. But they generate as much as 20% of country's GDP and are key for Russian plans to tap into the hidden resources as Siberian reserves diminish.
In theory, floating nuclear power plants could help supply energy to remote areas without long-term commitments -- or requiring large investments into conventional power stations on mostly uninhabitable land.

The control center of the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear platform.




But the concept of a nuclear reactor stationed in the Arctic Sea has drawn criticism from environmentalists. The Lomonosov platform was dubbed "Chernobyl on Ice" or "floating Chernobyl" by Greenpeace even before the public's revived interest in the 1986 catastrophe thanks in large part to the HBO TV series of the same name.
Rosatom, the state company in charge of Russia's nuclear projects, has been fighting against this nickname, saying such criticism is baseless. But Russia's civilian nuclear industry also faced public questions following the Chernobyl catastrophe, which shaped concerns about "the peaceful atom" for decades to follow.

A worker finishes construction inside the platform's facilities.




Construction of dozens of nuclear plants stopped, affecting not only massive Chernobyl-scale projects but also slowing down the use of low-power reactors like the one in what would become the floating station (The Chernobyl plant produced up to 4,000 megawatts. Lomonosov has two reactors producing 35 megawatts each).
Some nuclear watchdogs have pointed to another nuclear mishap, the Fukushima disaster, to highlight the risks of a seagoing reactor. The Russian plant's main benefits -- mobility and ability to work in remote regions -- complicate some crucial security procedures, from routine disposal of the nuclear fuel to rescue operations in the event the platform is hit by a massive wave.

Akademik Lomonosov rests in St. Petersburg before it was brought to Murmansk to be filled with nuclear fuel.




Project engineers say they've learned the lessons of Fukushima -- and that the plant is built to withstand even a tsunami. Still, anxieties in Russia about potential radiation dangers have been raised following another, more recent, incident: A failed missile test near the village of Nyonoksa, also in Russia's far north.
Russian authorities confirmed a brief spike in radiation from the incident, although President Putin said the incident posed no threat to the public.

[Kathianne]

https://time.com/5659769/russia-floating-nuclear-power/

After a String of Nuclear Incidents, Russia Just Launched a Floating Nuclear Power Plant. Is It Safe?

BY TARA LAW
AUGUST 23, 2019


On Friday, an unusual kind of vessel set sail from the Arctic city of Murmansk, Russia, for a destination in the country’s far east––a floating nuclear power plant equipped with two reactors.


The vessel, dubbed the Akademik Lomonosov, is set to travel about 2,900 miles to the Arctic port town of Pevek, which has a population of about 4,000 people, where it will be loaded with nuclear fuel and put in place to provide power to the region, according to Russia’s state nuclear corporation, ROSATOM.


Russia’s far east may just be the beginning. ROSATOM has said that it’s in talks with potential customers for the floating power unit, and sees “significant market potential” in Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa. The vessel’s reactors can generate 70 megawatts of electric energy and 50 gigacalories an hour of heat energy, according to ROSATOM––enough to support a city of up to 100,00 people.


Why are people worried about the floating nuclear power plant?

However, the vessel has sparked concerns about safety as a result of Russia’s tarnished nuclear record. Just this summer, there were two deadly accidents involving Russian nuclear power. On July 1, 14 sailors were killed in a fire on the secretive Losharik nuclear submarine; then on Aug. 8, five scientists were killed when a missile test on Russia’s White Sea failed.

The Kursk nuclear submarine sank on the Barents Sea on Aug. 12, 2000, killing 118 people on board, and scientists have recent found that an nuclear sub that sank in the Barents Sea, the Komsomolets––which was lost in 1989––is emitting high levels of radiation.

Then there’s Chernobyl, the 1986 nuclear power station meltdown in the former Soviet Union that is perhaps the biggest and most famous civil nuclear disaster in history. It exposed potentially hundreds of thousands of people to radiation.

A high-profile HBO series, Chernobyl, has renewed attention on the devastating consequences of a nuclear accident––and the potential of political machinations that can get in the way of public safety.


Environmental activist group Greenpeace has publicly raised concerns about the Russian nuclear power vessel. In an April blog post titled, “The next Chernobyl may happen in the Arctic,” Konstantin Fomin of Greenpeace called for the program to be brought to a halt.


“This is an example of how new technologies are put into use without reflection on their safety,” Fomin wrote, adding, “Greenpeace demands the abandonment of expensive and dangerous atomic energy.”


ROSATOM insists that the vessel is designed to be safe, and will not harm the environment, writing in a statement that the vessel “is designed with a great margin of safety that exceeds all possible threats and makes nuclear reactors invincible for tsunamis and other natural disasters.”


News in Russia has mainly emphasized that that the technology is new and innovative, and that it could help to provide power to remote parts of the country.


“This is an absolute breakthrough in small nuclear power,” said Pavel Ipatov, the director of special projects for a section of ROSATOM’s nuclear power subsidiary, according to Russian news service Vesti.ru. “Russia is the first country which has gotten this technology. It has very good prospects.”


Is it actually safe?
In fact, putting nuclear reactors on ships is not new. Nuclear reactors have been placed on ships, including to provide propulsion, for more than 50 years. A World War II-era cargo ship, the SS Charles H. Cugle, was converted into a nuclear power plant in the 1960s. It was used to provide the U.S. Army with power. The vessel was stationed at the Panama Canal Zone from 1968 to 1976, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.




Robert Bean, an associate professor of nuclear engineering at Purdue University, tells TIME that there is a different set of concerns for nuclear reactors at sea than for reactors on land. Reactors at sea must be protected from storms, and have differing security concerns because they can be approached by other ships.


However, says Bean, the Russians are employing a type of reactor that has been used for a long time on its ice-breaking ships––the KLT-40S––and will be similar to the design of reactors the Russians use in submarines. Bean says that the design is very similar other reactors used around the world.


“I don’t see any reason why it’s less safe,” said Bean. “At first look you go, whoa, it’s different. And that’s my point––it’s different, but I don’t think that means it’s less safe.”


“It’s always possible that such a thing could happen. However, every reactor is designed to try to prevent that, the procedures are all designed to try to prevent that and when it does happen––for example Fukishima––the very first thing once it was dealt with, every other reactor in the world looked a their design and said, what could we change, how would we make sure this never happens to us?”




Steven Biegalski, the Chair of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering and Medical Physics Program at Georgia Institute of Technology, tells TIME that whether a nuclear reactor is kept on a boat or on land, the priority is the same––making sure that that the core is kept cool if it’s shut down.


“The nice thing is that if you submerge the whole reactor system, including the reactor vessel, under water, it’s going to get as much cooling as you can possibly want,” Biegalski says. “If you put the reactor core in an Arctic Ocean off the coast of Russia, would probably provide enough of a cooling sink that you don’t have to worry about the reactor concerns.”


What is the biggest concern?
However, Biegalski tells TIME that if there’s a reason to be concerned about the reactor, it’s because Russia hasn’t been open about its nuclear program and past accidents.


“It’s not a new concept, it’s something that has been done in the past, and if done correctly can be done very safely and without concerns,” Biegalski says. “I will say that I am concerned currently about Russia’s transparency.”




While he emphasizes that the design of the reactor is very different than the Chernobyl reactor, he’s concerned that Russia didn’t learn a big lesson after the 1986 disaster––that failing to notify the international community quickly was “irresponsible.”


“It may not have allowed local governments and local organizations to respond properly. It also means you may not get the help that you could get in a timely manner, because there may be people standing by to help that might not be there if you don’t ask them to be,” Biegalski says.

He notes that the slow release of information after the most recent nuclear accident may be a warning sign.

[Balu]

[CSM]

Nuking the world .... one disaster at a time....

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Russia surely has a problem with things ACCIDENTALLY BLOWING UP, and then either down playing it or just trying to cover it up entirely...

[Gunny]

Wow. A floating nuclear bomb. Damn we're dumb for not thinking of THAT one first

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Wow. A floating nuclear bomb. Damn we're dumb for not thinking of THAT one first

I know you're joking... I think... but you just might have hit on something...

[icansayit]

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...ent-again.html

On Thursday, August 8, Russia’s state nuclear-energy company, Rosatom, announced that two military personnel had been killed in an explosion at a military testing site outside Severodvinsk, a city on the White Sea with restricted access for foreign visitors. Rosatom initially attributed the casualties to a rocket-engine blast; using a Russian idiom, the state corporation issued a collectivist lament: “A bright memory of our comrades will forever live in our hearts.”

The aftermath of the explosion brought another familiar Russian concern: the possibility of a cover-up of a nuclear event. Within hours of the explosion, scientists in Severodvinsk clocked a spike in radiation, though the report was cleared from its website shortly after. By Friday, a Russian maritime authority had cut off shipping access in the surrounding bay for a month; a nuclear-nonproliferation group identified a specialized ship frequently used to carry liquid radioactive waste within the exclusion zone near the explosion; pharmacies in the region began to run out of iodine, believed to be a first line of defense against radiation sickness; and a Russian news site published a video in which personnel injured by the explosion were taken to a hospital in Moscow in ambulances sealed with plastic, in an apparent attempt to prevent contamination. An evacuation of a nearby village was planned, then canceled.

By Saturday, Rosatom was correcting its casualty count, adding that five scientists “tragically died testing a new special product,” and confirming that radioactive materials were involved in the explosion. But the state’s vague confirmation — detailing the explosion of an “isotope power source for a liquid fueled rocket engine” — did more to ignite inquiry than quell speculation. U.S. intelligence officials suspect that the event was related to a prototype of Russia’s proposed “Skyfall” missile system, which the New York Times describes as a “cruise missile that [Vladimir] Putin has boasted can reach any corner of the earth because it is partially powered by a small nuclear reactor, eliminating the usual distance limitations of conventionally fueled missiles.” Announced last year in Putin’s state-of-the-union speech, the proposed missile class could be a doozy. Per the Times:

[Gunny]

I know you're joking... I think... but you just might have hit on something...

Maybe they'll roll into the Arabian Gulf where those omnipotent, Iranian speed boats are ...

[Drummond]

I get the impression that Balu feels pride over this latest development (... well, what else is new ??).

Balu ... does any other nation on earth have a WORSE record when it comes to nuclear engineering, than Russia ??

But that doesn't bother you. National pride, mixed in with a thoroughly myopic arrogance, makes you blind to anything other than the 'Might is Right' mindset. Because Mother Russia CAN do this sort of thing, then to you, that is justification enough. To hell with your abysmal safety record. To hell with any and all risks that others suffer because of the product of that arrogance. You don't care. Your country's proven incompetence when it comes to the implementation of safety standards plays second fiddle to the belief that if Russia does something, this of itself somehow 'justifies' the action.

So tell me. Was Mother Russia JUSTIFIED in letting loose a radioactive cloud that emanated from the Chernobyl explosion, and which European nations (including my own) had to live under, for however brief a time ?

But let me guess:

1. You'll dismiss that as 'propaganda'

2. You just WON'T CARE about the risks your country foists on others.

I'm right. Aren't I ?

[Gunny]

I get the impression that Balu feels pride over this latest development (... well, what else is new ??).

Balu ... does any other nation on earth have a WORSE record when it comes to nuclear engineering, than Russia ??

But that doesn't bother you. National pride, mixed in with a thoroughly myopic arrogance, makes you blind to anything other than the 'Might is Right' mindset. Because Mother Russia CAN do this sort of thing, then to you, that is justification enough. To hell with your abysmal safety record. To hell with any and all risks that others suffer because of the product of that arrogance. You don't care. Your country's proven incompetence when it comes to the implementation of safety standards plays second fiddle to the belief that if Russia does something, this of itself somehow 'justifies' the action.

So tell me. Was Mother Russia JUSTIFIED in letting loose a radioactive cloud that emanated from the Chernobyl explosion, and which European nations (including my own) had to live under, for however brief a time ?

But let me guess:

1. You'll dismiss that as 'propaganda'

2. You just WON'T CARE about the risks your country foists on others.

I'm right. Aren't I ?

What has me curious is what does one want with a floating barge nuclear power plant? They planning to move a city into the middle of the ocean and claim it?

[Kathianne]

What has me curious is what does one want with a floating barge nuclear power plant? They planning to move a city into the middle of the ocean and claim it?

Actually the link I provided, probably Balu's too, though I didn't bother to read his, gave some reasons. Considering the amount of cold, really cold water surrounding it, probably the safest place if it's like the other Russian nuclear plants, the Arctic water would be a safeguard to a meltdown.

[Drummond]

Actually the link I provided, probably Balu's too, though I didn't bother to read his, gave some reasons. Considering the amount of cold, really cold water surrounding it, probably the safest place if it's like the other Russian nuclear plants, the Arctic water would be a safeguard to a meltdown.

This supposes that the Russian 'take' on nuclear reactors and things 'nuclear' in general, would generally conform to safe standards. I submit that Russia's history of disasters argues against that.