Russia's new FLOATING Nuclear Reactor

[TrentePieds]

A comparison not discussed in this thread - or anywhere else where it matters, AFAIK - is the comparison between the difficulty and cost of cleaning up after a nuclear power station that has been decommissioned at the end of the life of its physical structure, and the difficulty and cost of cleaning up after a mining operation supplying fuels of other kinds after the mine has been worked out.

Compare the damage to be cleaned up after the decommissioning of Sallafield in England with the damage to be cleaned up after lignite mining in the "Triangle of Death" in Silesia. Not to mention the mining of bituminous coal in B.C's Elk Valley or "fragging" for gas and oil within the US. Coal from Elk Valley and from Australia's vast open pit coal mining operations is used, admittedly, not for fuel, but for making steel. Its mining is just as injurious to the environment for all that.

From a "green" perspective I believe "nukes" are a far sounder proposition until we learn to scale down 1) our per capita energy consumption 2) the world population.

Canada has run CANDU reactors for a long time and never had an accident. "Spent fuel" from these decades of operations will obviously be dangerous for a long, long time but has been very well managed in a fairly small facility. The only real risk in Canada's use of nuclear powerplants is that emanating from the few warmongering nations whose weapons can reach us.

Let your review of this decades old debate start here:

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

Here are some counter-arguments:

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/what-w...nuclear-power/

One thing that will definitely not serve us well is the "chicken Little" sentiment with which this thread started.

TrentePieds

[Luckyknot]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

It's helpful to understand that not all nuclear reactors are the same.

In general, russian built reactors are built more cheaply and use graphite as their moderator. Graphite is a more effective neutron reflector as it heats up, and requires active cooling to keep from running away. This can fail (Chernobyl). Also, graphite burns (Chenobyl). Most western built reactors use a kind of water to reflect neutrons. This system becomes less effective as it heats up, and will shut itself down naturally if the people or hardware fail.

Most military reactors (on ships anyway) need to be very compact, and use highly enriched weapons-grade fuel. As well, the details of these reactors are classified in all cases. Because of this, it's probably wise to be wary of them, and insist that they avoid cities.

Western commercial reactors are quite safe. Spent fuel storage is an issue that needs to be worked out, but is certainly solvable.

Yes the specifics of the reactors are classified but they don't use any technology that isn't already widely in use. They're secret more to avoid an enemy finding a weakness I think. I would argue that the shipboard reactors (and the people who operate them) are the safest in the world. I'd rather have those in my city than a civilian plant. To my knowledge, of all the nuclear power plants the Navy operates, there have been zero accidents. And those are reactors on floating platforms that round the capes and power through storms.

As far as waste, next to nothing when you consider the frequency at which the fuel has to be changed. Not often at all. Overall I believe Nuclear power is a great meduim term solution to our power needs. We should always strive for less waste and less excess though no matter how "good" we think we're being about it.

Also, "weapons grade" just sounds scary. It makes it sound like they're a bunch bombs ready to go off. That couldn't be further from the truth. Most reactors probably use "weapons grade" fuel. It's just a level of enrichment you need to achieve to create the steady and reliable fissions necessary for stable heat production.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by requiem

All 11 of the US carriers are nuclear powered, as is the entirety of the submarine fleet.

As an aside, and given the issue of climate change, avoiding nuclear power is like a patient with treatable cancer skipping chemo "because it's poison" and instead opting for some faddish fruit-based diet.

Hundreds of ships and subs are powered by nuclear power. There are more operating nuclear reactors on ships and subs than there are generating power on land.


The Russians have nearly a dozen nuclear powered ice breakers, plus different nuclear powered ships including some heavy cruisers.


There have been nuclear powered merchant ships, although I think none are still in service.


I think some new nuclear powered tankers are under development.



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




If you care about climate change, you might want to be enthusiastic about this reliable carbon-free power source.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by WillyTheRat

How many of those "floating" nuclear reactors, submarine and aircraft carriers, are owned by a country with the Kursk and Chernobyl in their history?

40 or so.
25 or so subs, 1 floating power plant, 10ish ice breakers, 4 battle cruisers.
Russia doesn’t do aircraft carriers like the US.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

A comparison not discussed in this thread - or anywhere else where it matters, AFAIK - is the comparison between the difficulty and cost of cleaning up after a nuclear power station that has been decommissioned at the end of the life of its physical structure, and the difficulty and cost of cleaning up after a mining operation supplying fuels of other kinds after the mine has been worked out.

Compare the damage to be cleaned up after the decommissioning of Sallafield in England with the damage to be cleaned up after lignite mining in the "Triangle of Death" in Silesia. Not to mention the mining of bituminous coal in B.C's Elk Valley or "fragging" for gas and oil within the US. Coal from Elk Valley and from Australia's vast open pit coal mining operations is used, admittedly, not for fuel, but for making steel. Its mining is just as injurious to the environment for all that.

From a "green" perspective I believe "nukes" are a far sounder proposition until we learn to scale down 1) our per capita energy consumption 2) the world population.

Canada has run CANDU reactors for a long time and never had an accident. "Spent fuel" from these decades of operations will obviously be dangerous for a long, long time but has been very well managed in a fairly small facility. The only real risk in Canada's use of nuclear powerplants is that emanating from the few warmongering nations whose weapons can reach us.

Let your review of this decades old debate start here:

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

Here are some counter-arguments:

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/what-w...nuclear-power/

One thing that will definitely not serve us well is the "chicken Little" sentiment with which this thread started.

TrentePieds

You might add to that the horrendous damage done by burning coal, amounting to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths per year from air pollution plus hundreds of people per year directly killed in the mining process. Burning coal emits more radioactivity every month or whatever, than has ever been emitted in the whole history of nuclear power including the accidents.


See: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/co...nuclear-power/


Germany made the crazy decision to phase out nuclear power some time ago, and now gets 40% of its power from coal


And now has carbon emissions per capita DOUBLE those of nuclear-friendly France (72% of power from nuclear) or Sweden (62% of power from nuclear).



France and Sweden have carbon emissions per capita FOUR TIMES LESS than the U.S.

[AndyEss]

Curious that nearly ever poster misses the fact that this accident wasn't of a closed circuit nuclear reactor but of an open circuit nuclear powered (not necessarily nuclear armed) cruise missile engine. During flight, it spews radiation over whatever it flies over. When the Russian cruise missile hits its target (the USA or possibly China) the nuclear missile engine is destroyed, further contaminating its target area.
Russian oil processing operations in Siberia alone are thought to spill the equivalent of the BP Deep Horizon spill every year, and have been spilling this amount for 30-40 years, every year.
Putin can care less about environmental degradation, whether regional within Russia, or worldwide with this new missile (NATO codename "Skyfall" Russian name Buroveshnik).
The local area exerienced a radiation spike of about 5000% of normal for a supposed short time right after the engine test accident.
Jet or rocket fuel accidents don't increase radiation levels.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by StuM

Here ya go:


The Complete Catalog of the World's Nuclear Powered Ships - Commercial and Military

Thanks, I didn't expect it would include the boats. I suspect there are as many of them or more as surface ships.

[Chotu]

Sign me up for the next Yanmar, Beta, Honda or Tohatsu marine reactor. Now THAT'S a propulsion source I can get excited about.

Correction to the title of the thread though:
Russia's new FLYING nuclear reactor.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Hundreds of ships and subs are powered by nuclear power. There are more operating nuclear reactors on ships and subs than there are generating power on land.


The Russians have nearly a dozen nuclear powered ice breakers, plus different nuclear powered ships including some heavy cruisers.


There have been nuclear powered merchant ships, although I think none are still in service.


I think some new nuclear powered tankers are under development.



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




If you care about climate change, you might want to be enthusiastic about this reliable carbon-free power source.

The Savanah was the first US merchant vessel circa 1956. Short lived since world wide ports would not allow access.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by Luckyknot

Yes the specifics of the reactors are classified but they don't use any technology that isn't already widely in use. They're secret more to avoid an enemy finding a weakness I think. I would argue that the shipboard reactors (and the people who operate them) are the safest in the world. I'd rather have those in my city than a civilian plant. To my knowledge, of all the nuclear power plants the Navy operates, there have been zero accidents. And those are reactors on floating platforms that round the capes and power through storms.

As far as waste, next to nothing when you consider the frequency at which the fuel has to be changed. Not often at all. Overall I believe Nuclear power is a great meduim term solution to our power needs. We should always strive for less waste and less excess though no matter how "good" we think we're being about it.

Also, "weapons grade" just sounds scary. It makes it sound like they're a bunch bombs ready to go off. That couldn't be further from the truth. Most reactors probably use "weapons grade" fuel. It's just a level of enrichment you need to achieve to create the steady and reliable fissions necessary for stable heat production.

The specifics of navy reactors are secret to stop others from copying and using the design.

In order to shrink a reactor down that small, you'll be using weapons useable or grade fuel. The difference between weapons and reactor grade has to do with the level of enrichment (as you wrote). Most western reactors use fuel enriched to about 5% of U235. Weapons grade fuel is enriched to 80% or more, and is exponentially more dangerous to be around. No, it won't explode, probably, but the risk of a runaway reaction and meltdown in the case of human error or equipment failure is higher than I'm comfortable with, especially not knowing the details of how the reactor is moderated, how the fuel is stored, or what exactly the fuel is. All you need to do is bring too much WG fuel together in one place.

I'm also not impressed that we haven't been told of any nuclear accidents on military vessels.

It's interesting that you say you would argue that military reactors are safer than civilian. Since you don't know how a military reactor works, what fuel it uses, what procedural controls are in place, or what the actual safety record is, on what basis would you argue? Faith in military discipline?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by atlroofman

So after a Nuclear accident in Russia at a missile base they will not own up to. And there launch of a nuclear reactor built on a sea barge how long before everyone will need a Geiger counter on there boat ?

the 2 are about as far apart from each other as to be comparing a fart to a tank of compressed gas as to power

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by AndyEss

The explosion in Russia was probably during the test firing of a cruise missile engine. The unique thing is that missile engine is powered by a small, light nuclear reactor.
Very dirty, plus whatever the missile hits gets irradiated too.

The answer is maybe. The Russians have been supposedly working on a nuclear powered cruise missile, but most evidence suggests it is not yet operational.



The scary thing is that nuclear powered cruise missiles don't carry shielding. Some intelligence suggests that all or most of them have failed so far, but there is no exact consensus on this.


Still, it isn't really worth worrying about as one is far more likely to die in a car accident.

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "The Savanah was the first US merchant vessel circa 1956. Short lived since world wide ports would not allow access."

Well, there was that, alright, but more telling was, IMO, that NS Savannah was built to be a showpiece and a combo luxury liner and freighter. Daft idea to start with, but she sure was beautiful. Inside and out :-)

What put the blocks to 'er was the cost of operating her. At the then prevailing price of $80/ton for bunker fuel there was NO WAY she could compete in freight liner service with the ships then operated by the big freight carriers. Had bunker fuel been at ahunnertbuxaton, she could most certainly have completed, and port closures would have been rendered out of the question in the usual way.

TP

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Quote: "The Savanah was the first US merchant vessel circa 1956. Short lived since world wide ports would not allow access."

Well, there was that, alright, but more telling was, IMO, that NS Savannah was built to be a showpiece and a combo luxury liner and freighter. Daft idea to start with, but she sure was beautiful. Inside and out :-)

What put the blocks to 'er was the cost of operating her. At the then prevailing price of $80/ton for bunker fuel there was NO WAY she could compete in freight liner service with the ships then operated by the big freight carriers. Had bunker fuel been at ahunnertbuxaton, she could most certainly have completed, and port closures would have been rendered out of the question in the usual way.

TP

Your right, she was built as a show piece. I don't believe with the atom logo on the stack she would have been granted entry anyplace. We had her here as part of a maritime museum, atomic fuel long gone. I'm not sure she didn't go to the scrap yard. A effort well before the time.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Quote: "The Savanah was the first US merchant vessel circa 1956. Short lived since world wide ports would not allow access."

Well, there was that, alright, but more telling was, IMO, that NS Savannah was built to be a showpiece and a combo luxury liner and freighter. Daft idea to start with, but she sure was beautiful. Inside and out :-)

What put the blocks to 'er was the cost of operating her. At the then prevailing price of $80/ton for bunker fuel there was NO WAY she could compete in freight liner service with the ships then operated by the big freight carriers. Had bunker fuel been at ahunnertbuxaton, she could most certainly have completed, and port closures would have been rendered out of the question in the usual way.

TP

The points you mentioned were all significant factors in her being taken out of service, although when given the go ahead for construction, cost was not a concern. It was to be a demonstration and goodwill vessel. In 1971(when she was deactivated) bunker fuel was $20 per ton however in 1974, after she was taken out of service, bunker fuel was $80 per ton and her operating costs would have been comparable with conventionally fueled vessels.


Another issue was that some ports wouldn't allow a nuclear powered vessel into port, although as a demonstration ship, she helped ease the way for future nuclear powered ships.


An interesting issue was that due to her streamlining and design aesthetics, the forward holds were difficult to load, especially with increasingly automated loading systems.