Page 3 of 3

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:50 pm
by grzegorz
The problem is there is no accountability in Russia.

I laugh at Americans who say we should try to get Russia in the G8 as if Russia wants peace or alliance with the US. They don't. Every president has tried that with Putin and everyone including Trumpsky has failed at getting or building anything meaningful with Russia but Trumpsky willl still try to destroy NATO to get his Trump Tower Moscow while the world goes to crap.

Speaking of which...

Ex-US marine says injured by Russian prison guards

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:25 pm
by Steve James
I agree that there are already nuclear powered vessels (submarines for a long time). But, this isn't a nuclear powered vessel. It's a floating nuclear power station. The criticism comes from those who fear an accident and the environmental consequences. I put this in the Chernobyl thread because of the recent histories of accidents. Like I said, what could go wrong?

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:23 pm
by windwalker
Peacedog wrote:Honestly it's not that big a deal. Practically speaking most large ships should be nuclear powered. They aren't for strictly political reasons.

Here is a good wrap up of what is going on with nuclear fleets worldwide: ... ships.aspx

Accidents have happened in the past, the reactors themselves are designed with this in mind

On 12 August 2000, K-141 Kursk was lost when it sank in the Barents Sea, killing all 118 personnel on board.

Scorpion was lost on 22 May 1968, with 99 crewmen dying in the incident.

The US has used a floating nuclear power source in the past in the 60s...


MH-1A was the first floating nuclear power station. Named Sturgis after General Samuel D. Sturgis, Jr., this pressurized water reactor built in a converted Liberty ship was part of a series of reactors in the US Army Nuclear Power Program, which aimed to develop small nuclear reactors to generate electrical and space-heating energy primarily at remote, relatively inaccessible sites.[1] Its designation stood for mobile, high power. After its first criticality** in 1967, MH-1A was towed to the Panama Canal Zone that it supplied with 10 MW of electricity from October 1968 to 1975. Its dismantling began in 2014 and was completed in March 2019.

** Criticality, is the state of a nuclear chain reacting medium when the chain reaction is just self-sustaining (or critical), that is, when the reactivity is zero. More loosely, the term is used for states in which the reactivity is greater than zero.[1]

What the Russians are doing makes sense, using tech that has been tested
and used real time updated with latest modern technology


Each Lomonosov-class vessel will have two KLT-40S pressurized water reactors, a derivative of the standard KLT-40 and improved KLT-40M, the latter of which powers Russia’s Taymyr-class icebreakers. Each S variant can produce up to 35 megawatts of electricity or 150 megawatts of thermal energy.

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:02 pm
by Steve James
Hey, it's as smart as a nuclear powered cruise missile. The technology is there. What could possibly go wrong?

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:44 pm
by windwalker
From a post concerning safety and studies

J. Buongiorno, J. Jurewicz, M. Golay & N. Todreas (2016)
The Offshore Floating Nuclear Plant Concept, Nuclear Technology, 194:1, 1-14,
DOI: 10.13182/NT15-49

Yaoli Zhang, Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Golay & Neil
Todreas (2018) Safety Analysis of a 300-MW(electric) Offshore Floating Nuclear
Power Plant in Marine Environment, Nuclear Technology, 203:2, 129-145, DOI:

In these papers, they note a number of safety advantages
possessed by sea-based nuclear plants, when compared to land-based nuclear power plants.

First of all, a sea-based nuclear plant will have a reduced,
if any, residential population within the 10nm emergency planning zone. In the event of a nuclear accident near the coast, the reactor could be transported out to open ocean, drastically reducing the danger to any nearby population.

Second of all, the reactor plant would have access to a seemingly
infinite cooling supply. One of the greatest challenges to the safety of a nuclear plant is decay heat production, the fact the nuclear fuel can continue to produce heat long after the reactor has shutdown. If a light water reactor loses all cooling for long enough, the fuel can become so hot that it loses its structural integrity (i.e. it melts), produces hydrogen, and releases highly radioactive fission products. However, as long as the reactor receives adequate cooling, this is highly unlikely and the danger of a radioactive release to the environment is super low. In the case of a sea-based reactor plant, the ocean surrounding the reactor can continue to remove heat and, if needed, be used to maintain the core covered with water.

Third of all, a reactor at sea is less susceptible to seismic events. An earthquake is far less likely to cause plant damage and tsunami waves will be far smaller and spread out in deeper water. ... wer-plants

Interesting enough China is also building floating power sources

China may have better luck. Its first floating plant is currently under construction for deployment in 2021, with more to follow. Unlike Russia, China doesn't lack resources to devote to the project.

More important, its seaborne reactors are based on already successful land-based designs. Meanwhile, Chinese developers are collaborating with the country's offshore oil industry, which is hoping to use nuclear power to expand exploration and drilling in the South China Sea. Given China’s interest in dominating that disputed region, any lingering cost concerns should be easily disregarded. ... wer-plants

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:53 pm
by windwalker
Despite its slow progress, the Akademik Lomonosov looks set to become one of the first small modular reactors (SMRs) in the world to begin commercial operations.

In the U.S., Portland, Oregon-based NuScale Power is hoping have the country’s first SMR hooked to the grid no sooner than the mid-2020s. SMRs are of interest partly because it is hoped they will avoid the massive upfront costs of full-scale nuclear power plants. ... #gs.xvksqn

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:14 pm
by windwalker
A cruise missile with a nuclear reactor heated turbofan engine and a liquid fueled booster rocket is the most likely description of the Russian developmental weapons system that exploded while being tested on August 8.

It’s likely that the explosion occurred during maintenance or fueling operations on a barge floating off shore and not during an actual flight test. ... /#comments

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:53 pm
by Steve James
Why are you trying to convince me that they're a good idea? The only reason I care is because of where they're putting it and the potential effects of any accident. Yeah, of course, keeping reactors away from population centers is a good idea in case of an accident. Yes, if there's an accident, the reactor can be towed out to sea. Yep, perhaps floating reactors rather than building them on land is cheaper, and US companies are thinking of doing the same thing.

Still, my point is that the concern about the results of an accident are legitimate. No need to post several pages about their safety. I asked What could go wrong. The answer is not "nothing." And, the reasons that things can go wrong are as much about human carelessness as it is about technology. Chernobyl could have been safe, and the accident could have been prevented. But, ok, it's perfectly safe and/or worth the risk and reward.

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:14 pm
by Steve James
Fallout from Russia's mysterious missile disaster suggests a nuclear reactor blew up

A mysterious explosion at a Russian weapons testing site earlier this month released various radioactive isotopes, creating a cloud of radioactive gases that swept across a nearby town, the country's state weather agency revealed Monday, and experts said the mixture removes all doubt about what exactly blew up earlier this month.

The deadly August 8 blast at the Nyonoksa military weapons testing range released a handful of rapidly-decaying radioactive isotopes Strontium-91, Barium-139, Barium-140 and Lanthanum-140, isotopes which have half-lives ranging from 83 minutes to 12.8 days, the Rosgidromet national weather and environmental monitoring agency said in a statement Monday.

"These are fission products," Joshua Pollack, a leading expert on nuclear and missile proliferation, told Insider. "If anyone still doubts that a nuclear reactor was involved in this incident, this report should go a long way toward resolving that."

Alexander Uvarov, editor of the independent news site, told the news agency RIA Novosti that these isotopes are products of nuclear fission involving uranium, AFP reported Monday. These radioisotopes would potentially be released by a reaction involving uranium-235.
Nils Bøhmer, a Norwegian nuclear safety expert, explained to The Barents Observer that "the presence of decay products like barium and strontium is coming from a nuclear chain reaction," adding that "it is a proof that is was a nuclear reactor that exploded." Edwin Lyman, an expert with the Union of

Concerned Scientists, told the Guardian that the fission products detected and revealed Monday point to a reactor release.
Russia has been cagey with the details of the accident, which killed at least five and as many as seven people and triggered a radiation spike in nearby Severodvinsk.

In the aftermath of the explosion, Russia's explanation of the accident and its risks varied widely, several nuclear monitoring stations in Russia mysteriously went offline, doctors treating the wounded were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements as hospital records were destroyed, and one doctor was found to have a radioactive isotope in his muscle tissue.

Russia insists the cesium-137 detected in the doctor was the result of something he ate.

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:39 pm
by windwalker
A cruise missile with a nuclear reactor heated turbofan engine and a liquid fueled booster rocket is the most likely description of the Russian developmental weapons system that exploded while being tested on August 8. ... /#comments

one of the post

What other explanation?
How about, the nuclear turbofan engine was static-tested prior to the launch attempt, making it radioactive.
When the booster rocket exploded, it blew away radiation shielding, and presto.
But that assumes that the launch team were awfully close, which may or may not make sense, considering it was an ocean platform (if I understood correctly).
Still seems rather improbable.

another posters interesting take

I read with interest the news article, the link to which you provided. The behaviour of Schroeder does point to some sort of skulduggery

But my comment was regarding the use of skewed reporting on the recent explosion in Russia to advance an anti-nuclear agenda. How does one selectively affect public opinion against nuclear energy by such a tactic, only in those countries to which it does not hope to sell nuclear technology?

Occam’s understanding of the human condition ran much deeper than geopolitics.

Re: Watching Chernobyl

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:22 pm
by Steve James
Yep, it seems like a reactor explosion.