SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Akademik Lomonosov, under construction since 2007, has been launched. The barge,
has a length of 144 metres (472 ft) and width of 30 metres (98 ft). It has a displacement of 21,500 tonnes and a crew of 69 people. For the power generation, it has two modified KLT-40 naval propulsion reactors together providing up to 70 MW of electricity or 300 MW of heat.
According to Engadget:
Starting from St Petersburg, it will be towed around Norway to a Russian town called Murmansk to take on nuclear fuel. From there, it will head to the Arctic to power the oil-industry town of Pevek, along with a desalination plant and drilling rigs. While it's not the first floating nuclear plant -- the US used one from 1968 to 1975 -- it will be the first one in almost 40 years.
Futurism reports that:
Rosatom, the government-owned Russian energy company that developed the Lomonosov, released a statement saying that the floating reactor will be "invincible" to tsunamis and other natural disasters, and that it has met all the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The company argues that they have rendered Lomonosov harmless to the environment.
A press release from Greenpeace says:
The floating nuclear power plant was initially supposed to be loaded with nuclear fuel and tested on site in the centre of St. Petersburg. However, due to pressure from the Baltic states and a successful petition organised by Greenpeace Russia, Rosatom, the state-controlled nuclear giant that owns and operates the floating nuclear power plant, decided on 21 July 2017 to move loading and testing to Murmansk.
A 2013 RT article said:
The Akademik Lomonosov is to become the spearhead of a series of floating nuclear power plants, which Russia plans to put into mass-production.
[...]15 countries, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Namibia, Cape Verde and Argentina, have previously expressed interest in acquiring such power stations.
The Times of London has an infographic that can be viewed by non-subscribers.
Science Magazine has a loosely related article, Floating Nuclear Plants: Power from the Assembly Line; the first page can be viewed by non-subscribers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday May 01 2018, @10:33PM (14 children)
If that arctic harbor is nicely enclosed and you dump 230MW of heat in it 24/7, the local fish population is going to be a very interesting case study.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01 2018, @10:56PM (1 child)
On the menu they'll just be listed as "Local Steamed Fish".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 01 2018, @11:32PM
Free soup, just go on the beach and help yourself.
Make sure you read the warning 'Caution. Hot sea. May result in scalding' signs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday May 01 2018, @11:42PM (5 children)
Unlike Arizona**, in Siberia you need serious heating, that power is not to be dumped in the sea.
--
** Palo Verde nuke reactors [wikipedia.org] are located there and they didn't scorched the earth around, in spite of generating almost 4GW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday May 02 2018, @01:29AM (3 children)
Exactly. Much of the waste heat will be dumped into the town's steam pipes and radiated into homes and businesses.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:11AM (2 children)
I would be surprised to see this happen. This is Russian infrastructure we are talking about.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday May 02 2018, @04:51PM (1 child)
Collective heat generation is a lot more common than you think.
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:48PM
Indded, particularly in Russia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @03:57AM
The relevant passage in the Wikipedia article:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by qzm on Wednesday May 02 2018, @01:58AM (1 child)
Rough calculation.
assuming a harbour effective area of 1 sq.km by 10 meters average depth (which is pretty small).
230MW should raise the temperature around 1 degree in 50 hours, with perfect insulation.
unfortunately, that kind of surface area can also dissipate heat much after than that.
I doubt the temperature increase would be measurable beyond about 100m of the ship.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday May 02 2018, @04:21PM
A few degrees near the ship, and a significant ice-free zone, should have some pretty impressive impact on the local aquatic flora and fauna.
Arctic life always jumps on every opportunity.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 02 2018, @03:20AM (2 children)
It sounds like yet another awesome icebreaker to me.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @03:50AM
No, it's a barge. It's not self-propelled. It's being towed.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @04:27AM
The design of the reactors is based on the ones used in Russia's nuclear icebreakers.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday May 02 2018, @04:35PM
In my nuclear days, our power station used to dump about 700MW of heat into the adjacent estuary. The water was 9C hotter at the cooling water outlet than at the inlet. The marine life loved it and so did the fishermen
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].