follow us like us subscribe contact us
Loading, please wait

Chernobyl at Sea? Russia Building Floating Nuclear Power Plants

By John Daly | Wed, 10 July 2013 22:02 | 23

So much for the lessons of Fukushima. Never mind oil spills, the Russian Federation is preparing an energy initiative that, if it has problems, will inject nuclear material into the maritime environment.

Speaking to reporters at the 6th International Naval Show in St. Petersburg, Baltiskii Zavod shipyard general director Aleksandr Voznesenskii said that the Russian Federation’s first floating nuclear power plant “should be operational by 2016.”

Baltiysky Zavod is Russia’s biggest shipbuilding complex. According to Voznesenskii, the "Academician Lomonosov" FNPP will be the first vessel belonging to the new line of floating nuclear power plants that can provide energy, heat and water to remote and arid areas of the country, with mass production scheduled for the near future.

The "Academician Lomonosov’s" technology is based on the USSR’s construction of nuclear-powered icebreakers. The Russian media is speculating that the FNPPS will first be used in remote areas of the northeastern Arctic Russia and the Far East, as these regions currently suffer from a lack of energy, slowing their development.  Each 21,000 ton vessel will have two “modified KLT-40 naval propulsion reactors” that will provide up to 70 megawatts of electricity or 300 megawatts of heat, sufficient for a city with a population of 200,000 people. Additionally, the floating NPPs can provide water desalination services capable of supplying up to 240,000 cubic meters of fresh water per day.

Perhaps referring to Soviet-era nuclear icebreakers is not such a hot idea, at least for those with historical memories.

Related article: Climate Policy Spells Turn Around for Exelon

Launched in 1957, the Lenin, the USSR’s first nuclear powered icebreaker, was powered by three OK-150 reactors. In February 1965, there was a loss of coolant incident, and some of the fuel elements melted or deformed inside reactor number two. The debris was removed and stored for two years, and subsequently dumped in Tsivolki Bay near Novaia Zemlia two years later. The second accident was a cooling system leak, which occurred in 1967, shortly after refueling.
Not a reassuring developing for the Soviet Arctic environment.

"Academician Lomonosov’s" keel was laid in April 2007 at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk on the White Sea, but the project was subsequently transferred to the Baltiskii Zavod. The "Academician Lomonosov’s" 21,500 ton hull was subsequently launched in 2010, although construction work was frozen in mid-2011because of bankruptcy proceedings against the shipyard. The company was subsequently acquired by state-owned United Shipbuilding Corporation and Rosenergoatom signed a new contract with the Baltiskii Zavod for the "Academician Lomonosov’s" completion. The "Academician Lomonosov" has 69 crew and specialists. Ominously, the "Academician Lomonosov" has no engines, so it needs to be towed.  The vessel is equipped with two modified KLT-40 reactors.

But, not to worry.

The Baltiskii Zavod shipyard stressed that The "Academician Lomonosov" and its successors are all designed with a safety margin exceeding all possible threats which makes its nuclear reactors invulnerable to tsunamis and other natural disasters and the ships meet all the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and do not pose a threat to the environment. The factory further states that 15 nations, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Namibia and Argentina have already expressed interest in buying floating nuclear power plant.

Related article: Nuclear Energy Innovation is Vital for Slowing Climate Change

The "Academician Lomonosov"will be sent to Vilyuchinsk, Kamchatka for operational testing. Rosatom then aims to construct seven more FNPPs by 2015, with four of them likely to be located on the northern coast of Siberia’s Yakutia. Other Arctic areas provisionally scheduled to receive FNPPs include port cities along the Russian Federation’s arctic coastal Northern Sea Route and Pevek in Chukotka. An added benefit of the FNPP as envisaged in Moscow is that the provision of nuclear power to the Arctic and Far East will free up more oil and natural gas for foreign export, allowing the Russian federation to generate additional hard currency.

Tow cables snap, Arctic conditions can be unpredictable, ships sink. As the ocean is the common heritage of humanity, perhaps the international community might evince a tad more interest in this project.

By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com

Leave a comment

  • Matt Robinson on July 10 2013 said:
    Oilprice.com's resident anti-nuclear activist is at it again. Another post starting with the text 'So much for the lessons of Fukushima'.

    What lessons, John? That despite core meltdowns, the only killer was the evacuations? That despite major failures at the plant, 'no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated' (WHO, February 2013).

    Fukushima teaches us that nuclear power is, in fact, much safer than previously preched by people like you. In fact it's orders of magnitude safer than burning fossil fuels.

    Then you seek to compare Fukushima to Chernobyl? There is no comparision, except perhaps the very low to nonexistent mortality of each.

    Perhaps you're trying to insult the Russians by suggesting their modern plants are all the same as the Chernobyl design. Your posts would be much less embarrassing if you did even a little technology research.

    What will be your next idea? Ban the production of modern cars based on the safety record of the 1938 VW beetle?
  • Dr. John C.K> Daly on July 11 2013 said:
    Dear Mr. Robinson,

    Many thanks for your commentary.

    Since you are so obviously dedicated to ad hominem attacks on my writing, whilst offering nothing except a single WHO quote, a few points for you to consider from "specialists,” I thought that I would allow myself a reply.

    Since you label me “Oilprice.com's resident anti-nuclear activist,” you perhaps might find the material below of some small interest.

    From Congressional testimony of the father of the U.S. nuclear navy, Admiral Hyman Rickover.

    "I'll be philosophical. Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn't have any life — fish or anything. Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet—and probably in the entire system—reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin... Now when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible... Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years. I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it... I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. Have I given you an answer to your question?"

    - Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, father of the U.S. nuclear navy, "On the hazards of nuclear power. Testimony to Congress" (28 January 1982); published in Economics of Defense Policy: Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Pt. 1 (1982).

    Since you claim that Chernobyl deaths were only caused by "evacuations" and cite the world Health Organization, the from the WHO, “CHERNOBYL at 25th anniversary,” 23 April 2011 might perhaps interest you…

    “According to the UNSCEAR report, the Chernobyl accident caused a number of severe radiation effects almost immediately. Of 600 workers present on the site during the early morning of 26 April 1986, 134 received very high doses (0.8-16 Grey) and suffered from acute radiation sickness. Of those, 28 workers died in the first three months.”(http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FAQs_Chernobyl.pdf).

    Health consequences?

    “The collective dose to the thyroids of the inhabitants of the Belarussian republic was more than 500 thousand Greys. As a result, about 30% of the population suffers from some thyroid disorders. All categories affected by the Chernobyl accident reported increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer, cardiovascular diseases and neuropsychiatric disorders.”(http://news.tut.by/society/345898.html).

    Never mind the other former republics or Central and Western Europe.

    I won’t even bother to go into Fukushima here, except to note an article from that leftist rag, The Wall Street Journal, which notes, “Highly radioactive groundwater recently discovered in test wells at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is likely spreading at the site and leaking into adjoining ocean waters, Japan's nuclear regulator said, raising more worries about the plant operator's efforts to clean up the disaster site.
    The tests by Tokyo Electric Power Co. 9501.TO +1.21% have found a recent increase in radiation levels in wells meant to monitor water safety, with some radioactive levels around 200 times the allowed limits. Experts said the findings raise concerns of widening environmental damage but that the increased levels pose no immediate threat to public health given the location of the plant on the oceanfront and the lack of any residents living nearby.”(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324879504578597323434402096.html).

    As for Russian Federation reactors, Russia's nuclear plants contain 33 operating reactors totaling 24,164 megawatt hours, of which 13 RBMK light water graphite reactors (LWGR), of the type that exploded at Chernobyl. The four oldest of these were commissioned in the 1970s at Kursk and Leningrad.

    In the future, I would appreciate something approaching a balanced riposte from you, and that you do your homework.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. John C.K. Daly
  • thedoctor on July 12 2013 said:
    "What lessons, John? That despite core meltdowns, the only killer was the evacuations? That despite major failures at the plant, 'no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated' (WHO, February 2013)"

    Ah the rant of a simple minded robot. The notion that the only thing to be concerned about is cancer is the greatest PR move in history. Some time back those who sought to utilize questionable practices for profit simply created the cancer formula. If it can't be shown to cause cancer, it must be good. Of course PROVING cancer causality is nearly impossible without serious money, which, oddly enough, would have to come from the same systems who don't want to prove anything of the kind. And even if one loan jerk says the immeasurable cesium dump in the pacific causes cancer, getting a thousand economically and emotionally helpless scientists to say other wise is easy.

    That trickled down into the public discourse and I have actually heard cocktail party talkers say, "does it cause cancer?" When the other misinformed nut says, "there is NO proof it causes cancer" the conversation ends. We now live in an age where PR scum have reduced all health concerns to cancer or not, and all humans are experts in the millions of studies done in the world each decade.

    As for the nukes on boats, it does beg the question, why are the Navy nuke machines so small compared to the one's we insist on placing in: Tsunami zones, population centers and on earthquake faults?
  • Matt Robinson on July 12 2013 said:
    Dear Mr Daly,

    I call you out as "OilPrice.com's resident anti-nuclear activist" because you are. Your writings are purposefully worded to express your anti-nuclear bias.

    As for: 'Since you claim that Chernobyl deaths were only caused by "evacuations"', perhaps you need to read a little closer. I didn't say that at all. I was referring to Fukushima.

    I only quoted one WHO report to keep my comments brief. There are many more reports that support the low mortality rates at both Fukushima and Chernobyl. In fact, take a look at this page from the very same site you quoted above ( http://news.tut.by/health/345675.html):

    "Summing up the discussions about the materials of the last report UNSCEAR, based on 20 years of research, the chairman of the National Commission on Radiation Protection of the Council of Ministers of Belarus stressed that the vast majority of the population should not be in fear of serious health consequences as a result of the Chernobyl accident..."

    As for the Russian Federation reactor designs, these have progressed steadily over their decades of operation in both safety and reliability. This is bourne out by the reality that a Chernobyl event hasn't occured since.

    No, Mr Daly, In my opinion your aim here is to spread fear. The same fear that is reported to have killed more than 1000 people at Fukushima and many thousands in the communities around Chernobyl. The same fear that's driving Germany to increase harmful fossil fuel emissions that cause many thousands of deaths every year and harm our environment.

    Just as you seem to think it's your 'duty' to spread fear and misinformation about nuclear power, I feel compelled to challenge you.
  • Peter on July 12 2013 said:
    A comment on the article. It states what not to build. But the article does not offer up a better solution.

    It is great to see a country committing to the use of diverse methods to generate electricity to improve the lives of their people.

    Depending on the resources, infrastructure and location, one has to pick the best choice to generate the electricity. In this case, Russia has determined, for remote locations, nuclear is the best choice.

    What is the problem?
    If a remote location in a cold climate has no dependable rail service, coal may not be the answer. Same for oil, solar, wind, etc.

    If not nuclear, what would be the better choice?

    It is better than the BANANA policy
    Build
    Absolutely
    Nothing
    Anywhere
    Near
    Anyone

    We all lose with that policy.
  • End Time Coming Faster on July 12 2013 said:
    That's OK...seems like all countries with nuclear anything, have a death wish to fulfill. Too much money and very little common sense is the driving force here and around the World.

    I expected more from the Russians...they have experienced severe problems with nuclear. Must be America influences somewhere, push all of this.
  • Dr. John C.K. Daly on July 12 2013 said:
    This is a joint reply to both Matt Robinson and “thedoctor (sic):” the first lambasting me as "OilPrice.com's resident anti-nuclear activist" the latter alluding to my article as “the rant of a simple minded robot,” as “The notion that the only thing to be concerned about is cancer is the greatest PR move in history.”

    Accordingly, we can safely dismiss the concerns of epidemiological studies about the hazards of long term low level radiation exposure as published in The Journal of the American Medical Association” and Britain’s the Lancet, to name but two prominent medical journals, as part of a vast anti-nuclear campaign.

    Robinson was correct when he noted that my reply about evacuations referred to Chernobyl.
    Speaking of evacuations, at Fukushima, “The area of evacuation was ?1100 km2 (Chernobyl case 10,300 km2) and the number of evacuees is about 120,000 ?400,000).”(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350448713000267).

    Initial casualties at Fukushima were reported in the U.S. press (not initially in the Japanese) at five deaths and 15 poisoned by radiation sickness,(http://fragments.g.hatena.ne.jp/chanbara/20110402/1301675651) and at least 45 elderly died during the evacuation of the area around Fukushima.(http://mainichi.jp/english/english/features/archive/news/2011/04/20110426p2a00m0na006000c.html).
    Since we seem to be quoting the World Health Organization at length, WHO's director for public health and environment, Maria Neira, said in the wake of a recent 170-page report WHO issued on Fukushima, “A breakdown of data, based on age, gender, and proximity to the plant, does show a higher cancer risk for those located in the most contaminated parts.”(Emphasis added.)

    “Experts agree that children are at greatest risk; after the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986, about 6,000 who were exposed to radiation later developed thyroid cancer because they drank contaminated milk. In Fukushima, however, dairy radiation levels were closely monitored after the disaster. Among infants from the most heavily affected areas, radiation from Fukushima would add one percentage point to their lifetime chances of developing cancer, the WHO report said.
    But when the data are broken down, a more alarming picture emerges. Women in the area who were exposed as infants would have a 70% higher chance of developing thyroid cancer in their lifetimes, the report said. (Emphasis added.) Given that a woman's normal lifetime risk of developing thyroid cancer is about 0•75 in 100—the rate would rise to 1•25 out of every 100 women in the area who received the highest radiation doses as infants.

    The Lancet continues, …”A third of the workers face an increased chance of developing thyroid cancer, leukaemia, and all solid cancers” (emphasis added), according to WHO's report.
    (Justin McCurry, "Fukushima residents still struggling 2 years after disaster," The Lancet, Volume 381, Issue 9869, Pages 791 - 792, 9 March 2013.)

    The above is from Britain’s The Lancet magazine, founded in 1823, a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal, one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals.

    So, a women exposed to Fukushima facing “70% higher chance of developing thyroid cancer” and “A third of the workers fac(ing) an increased chance of developing thyroid cancer, leukemia, and all solid cancers as a consequence of Fukushima’s nuclear catastrophe is an acceptable price for Japanese nuclear power then?

    Oh, and the cleanup of Fukushima could last an estimated four decades.( Tetsuya Tanimoto , Koichiro Yuji, Yuko Kodama, Tomoko Matsumura, Hisashi Yamamoto, Jinichi Mori, Miwako Hosodae, Naoyuki Uchida, Masahiro Kami and Shuichi Taniguchi, "The long and winding road for the Fukushima nuclear workers," The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9819, Page e34, 10 March 2012.)

    Thousands of productive acres of farmland offline, hundreds of thousands of people evacuated from their homes for the immediate future, a third of Fukushima workers facing increased risk of illness from their exposure, while women exposed at Fukushima face a “70% higher chance of developing thyroid cancer” – this is the true cost of the 11 March 2011 Fukushima incident, and no amount of bloviating can alter these facts, but both Robinson and “thedoctor” apparently feel that these are an acceptable price for nuclear power.

    Both respondents seem to feel that the only worthwhile nuclear deaths are those from immediate blast, heat and radiation exposure effects – no doubt a number of Japanese would disagree, and that number will surely rise in the years ahead as the true consequences of Fukushima become known, whatever “cocktail party talkers say,” a prime source of objective knowledge if there ever was one.

    All energy sources come with risks, as China’s dolorous coal miner casualty rate and the recent oil tanker explosions in Canada prove. But nuclear energy is unique in that its generating materials can pollute the environment for decades.
  • Matt Robinson on July 12 2013 said:
    Perhaps the opposite is true, Mr 'End Time'. The death wish is to remain with fossil fuels, and nuclear is actually much safer that the anti-nuclear community and cold-war propaganda machine have been saying.

    In fact the very events that the anti-nuclear community hold as 'proof' the nuclear power will kill us all - Chernobyl and Fukushima - have proven the opposite is true.

    The only real threat nuclear power brings is to those in the renewables and biofuels industries. Once nuclear gains global acceptance (which is rapidly developing), they may well find their chosen energy sources, and their livelihoods, consigned to obsolescence.

    So they do their best to convince people that nuclear is an unacceptable health threat, but that strategy is rapidly wearing thin. The cracks in their arguments are showing and desperation is setting in.
  • abinico warez on July 12 2013 said:
    Best evidence yet that humans are nothing more than smart, dangerous, talking monkeys.
  • Hermies on July 12 2013 said:
    The Russians have a terrible record with their atomic icebreakers and subs, with many accidents, and the unreported dumping of obsolete reactors and fittings into the sea. But this certainly won't stop them from trying the same scam with FNPs. Westinghouse had a short-lived FNP program in the late 1970s, (Offshore Power Systems), but the project was abandoned due to insurmountable safety issues, and no corporate sponsors. Another issue with FNPs, other than the obvious fact that they will be spewing radioactive water into the ocean as part of their NORMAL operating procedure, is the question of jurisdiction. Into what international waters will these FNPs be allowed? Remember the fate of the nuclear merchant ship Savannah, which was eventually mothballed because no major port wanted the radioactive thing docked anywhere near their population centers! Nobody but brainwashed dullards wants MORE nuclear, and this, historically, includes most major municipalities.
  • Ruth Rothstein on July 12 2013 said:
    Hello Everyone,

    Who is willing to accept a Beta particle lodged deep in their lungs?

    Hats off to Dr. John C.K. Daly for speaking to the deaf, that they may listen.

    Recommended reading: http://acehoffman.org/

    Regards to all!

    RR
  • Matt Robinson on July 13 2013 said:
    Anti-nuclear people seem to love to find the biggest numbers they can find and just spout them in the home that it garners attention, regardless of context.

    Everything you've quoted so far, Mr. Daly, has been hotly disputed (on both sides), as it's all theoretical. This is why I won't get drawn into 'pissing contests' over who has access to the most statistics to spout.

    I evaluate the data and reports I see based on actuals. Where are the millions dead as predicted by the anti-nuclear movement just after Chernobyl? Where, even, are the so-called 5 deaths at Fukushima? Answer: nowhere, because it's complete rubbish.

    Even you, John, cannot deny that we are talking minuscule numbers or deaths and sickness compared with undisputed data on the health effects of fossil fuel burning.

    You rightly state that all energy sources have their risks - including bio-fuels and wind and solar. But to condemn nuclear power based on 'perceived risk' of cancer is hypocritical in the extreme.

    It's also worth noting here that these perceptions of risk are based on the fallacious but widely used LNT rule for radiation dose. As you point out quite correctly, LNT doesn't hold true for doses under 100mSv and arguably may not hold true for doses as high as 250mSv.

    Around 450 nuclear reactors, many very old designs, have run with major issues for over 40 years. This has been due to the diligence of those who run them and the worldwide authorities who oversee them. But it has also been due to inherent safety of the reactors themselves.

    Can they be made safer? Hell, yes! Are modern reactor designs hugely safer than older designs? Hell, yes! Is it fair to compare modern nuclear reactors with Chernobyl? Hell, no!

    Mr. Daly, as long as you commence your articles about modern nuclear reactors with references to Chernobyl or Fukushima and try to evoke fear in your readers based on these events, I will challenge you as an opportunistic, anti-nuclear bigot.
  • SA Kiteman on July 13 2013 said:
    Ruth,
    I'd much rather have beta particle than a smoke particle.

    The deafest one in this argument line is Daly himself. First he misread Matt's post. Then he TOTALLY missed what thedoctor was saying, then he gave ridiculous numbers for deaths from the Fukushima evacuation which stand at somewhere near 1000. Perhaps Daly should try to hear himself before he tries to "speak to the deaf".
  • Marks2Much on July 13 2013 said:
    Nuclear energy is not a sustainable solution to mankind's energy needs. First of all, it requires immense government subsidies to build, maintain, and insure the power generating facilities. Second of all, what about the waste? There's still no solution to the growing stockpiles of extremely dangerous fissionable fuel. Fukushima has shown what happens to this material as soon as it's cooling protocol is inhibited.

    Part of the reason you haven't read more about the injuries and deaths attributable to Fukushima is because of government and industry coverups. Why do you think the the government has put a stop to radiation reading measurement collections across the west coast? And what about the surrounding countryside and sea that will remain uninhabitable and unproductive for decades, if not centuries?

    Fukushima still has the possibility of becoming even worse if the cooing pools for reactor 4 collapse. Some scientists say it could even be an extinction level event. Still want to keep your head buried in the sand (before it turns to glass)?
  • Matt Robinson on July 13 2013 said:
    Sorry All. It seems I got a case of wobbly fingers in my last post.

    Replace:
    ...just spout them in the home
    With:
    ... just spout them in the hope

    And:
    ...have run with major issues for over
    With:
    ...have run without major issues for over

    Sorry for any confusion caused.
  • Matt Robinson on July 13 2013 said:
    Ruth, do you know what a Beta particle is?

    Did you know the human body experiences 500,000 radioactive decays per minute, quite naturally? There are many, many alpha and Beta particles already in your body.

    Perhaps deafness isn't confined to those who would confer it on others, hmmm?
  • Matt Robinson on July 13 2013 said:
    Mr Marks2Much, I really don't subscribe to your conspiracy theories, particularly when it comes to Fukushima. There's altogether too much scrutiny over all aspects of the events there for this kind of information to be kept secret.

    Chernobyl may well be a different story, but according to anti-nuclear groups we should be seeing millions of deaths by now. I don't think even Eastern Europe could hide that if it was happening.

    No, you can keep that crap to yourself.

    I agree the Fukushima clean-up has a way to go, and is a challenge, but an extinction level event? Utter crap. Even a basic understanding of radiation science completely discredits that rubbish.

    Regarding government subsidies, there isn't an energy company in the world that doesn't have it's hand out for government subsidies. Nuclear has a high initial build cost, true. So it should. Modern reactors are engineering marvels, and nuclear fission must be respected. But it simply isn't the risk it's made out to be, and long term energy costs are much cheaper than most other energy sources.

    And yes, even the waste isn't a problem. Nuclear waste is another of the anti-nuclear myths. Whether it's being recycled into MOX fuel for French and Japanese reactors, or being stored in spent fuel pools at the reactors, nuclear waste has been safely contained for decades. Not to mention the relatively tiny amount there is, or the next generation of reactors that are being designed to reduce this amount by a further 99%.

    Of course we can't say the same for fossil fuel waste (also radioactive!), which is currently floating around in your living room - part of the trillions of tons polluting every part of our environment and making everyone sick with substances that *won't* decay away, even after thousands of years.
  • Churchill on July 13 2013 said:
    Oh, how wonderful, lol. As there is no medical records kept to use as a standard previous to the rise of the oil/gas/petro-chemical, Nuclear,or the pharmaceutical/Drug to the modern food/livestock processing industries in which to measure the rise in various Cancers, Leukemia, AIDS, Autism to the many new virus/diseases being discovered or created as like in the creation of new enemies and terrorists on a monthly basis. Actually, it is known what radiation causes due to their experiments on various subjects leading up to the use of the H-bomb to the use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq, including occasional releases of contaminted air/water etc. from Nuclear Power Plants upon the environment and local citizenry world-wide as was habitual during the life of a operating NPP . The Drug Companies love those who are in a greedy selfish deniable, dis-allusional and irrational state of mind, as they are the Corporations/Big Government/United Nation's biggest contributors/supporters and leeches in the form of employment,welfare, bribery, prescription drugs to the supposed modern products of a supposed highly technological advanced society in which a clean Environment (clean/pure air, water,food and good health and mind)is of little or of no value to them.
  • SA Kiteman on July 14 2013 said:
    >> = Marks2much
    :: = me

    >> Nuclear energy is not a sustainable solution to mankind's energy needs.
    :: I don't know about that. 500 million years of complete energy supply seems fairly sustainable to me.

    >> First of all, it requires immense government subsidies to build, maintain, and insure the power generating facilities.
    :: "Massive government subsidies" is an anti-nuke myth. If anything, the nuclear power industry subsidies the government, not the other way around. I challenge you to show one area (other than R&D which is broadly done for all energy sources) where the government subsidizes the Nuclear Power Industry.

    >> Second of all, what about the waste? There's still no solution to the growing stockpiles of extremely dangerous fissionable fuel.
    :: Another myth. There are a number of technical solutions to the waste, all of which are impeded by anti-nuke political action. The waste "problem" is due to anti-nukes and no one else. If you want the waste "problem" solved, support rather than impede the nuclear power industry.

    >> Fukushima has shown what happens to this material as soon as it's cooling protocol is inhibited.
    :: Yup, what happens is that it gives the anti-nuke terrorist propaganda the opportunity to kill 1000+ people while the radiation is likely to kill very few if any.
  • Jose Ortiz on July 21 2013 said:
    These worries you are so quick to back with speculation are not really considerable from an engineering standpoint. These reactor were designed with every "lesson learned" in the industry, and the design parameters were chosen to negate each of your concerns. A sad case of a layman attempting to quantify risks associated with a technology he poorly understands.
  • Ghazali PH Kho on July 23 2013 said:
    Whatever scientific and technological expertise there may be, or that can be put forward, to defend nuclear in all its forms - energy, warheads, industrial uses, etc, there is an equal body that can be called on to oppose it!

    Both can be equally convincing, equally determined, equally correct.

    Despite past and current testimonies as to the damage and dangers from nuclear, a segment of humanity - the industrialists, commercial and military, members of administrations, and others with vested interests, political and hegemonic, persistently pursue the nuclear cause.

    The rest of humanity, all other life-forms and the environment are helplessly at the mercy of these nuclear perpetrators.

    No amount of reasoning can get through their thick walls of non-nuclear resistance.

    Why must the rest of us along with our voiceless, and seemingly rightless fellow life-forms, be subjected to such real, imminent dangers from nuclear radiation.

    Perhaps some people have never heard of moral responsibilities and obligations.

    So driven by primitive selfishness and sinful greed and inconsideration, they insist on traversing the nuclear road.

    They boast about innovation and creativity, yet are blind and unwilling to explore more morally-correct and responsible alternatives to our needs.

    It remains for conscientious, civil society to take more impacting actions on the whole nuclear chain from uranium mining to research and development and manufacturing, to bring about the nuclear-free world that we know can free us from the nuclear-armageddon that is waiting to happen!

    Ghazali PH Kho

    http://humanhoodinternational.blogspot.com
  • SA Kiteman on July 25 2013 said:
    >> = Kho
    :: = me

    >> Whatever scientific and technological expertise there may be, or that can be put forward, to defend nuclear in all its forms - energy, warheads, industrial uses, etc, there is an equal body that can be called on to oppose it!
    :: Not so. The body that opposes it is fraught with lies and half-truths intended to terrorize. The anti-nukes are the Al-Qaida of the energy world.

    >> Both can be equally convincing, equally determined, equally correct.
    :: True, true, false.

    >> Despite past and current testimonies as to the damage and dangers from nuclear, a segment of humanity - the industrialists, commercial and military, members of administrations, and others with vested interests, political and hegemonic, persistently pursue the nuclear cause.
    :: The testimonies you mention are largely lies intended to terrorize. Nuclear is not widely understood so it is spooky. So anti-nukes prey on the uncertainty to bread fear and doubt. In certain cases it can be proven to be the result of large donations to anti-nuke causes by fossil fuel companies looking to suppress their only REAL competition.

    >> The rest of humanity, all other life-forms and the environment are helplessly at the mercy of these nuclear perpetrators.
    :: The rest of humanity... are all the beneficiaries of the clean safe energy provided by nuclear power.

    >> No amount of reasoning can get through their thick walls of non-nuclear resistance.
    :: Plants are going in all over the world.

    >> Why must the rest of us along with our voiceless, and seemingly rightless fellow life-forms, be subjected to such real, imminent dangers from nuclear radiation.
    :: Because the is not much danger at all. Even given the two major accidents, nuclear power is MASSIVELY safer than its primary competitor, coal. And renewables kill more people EACH AND EVERY year than nuclear has killed in it's entire history... INCLUDING the bombs!

    >> Perhaps some people have never heard of moral responsibilities and obligations.
    :: Indeed, the pro-nuclear supporters know their moral responsibility to provide clean safe power to raise the poor up to a healthy and sustainable standard of living without poisoning them with coal smoke and cooking fire smoke.

    >> So driven by primitive selfishness and sinful greed and inconsideration, they insist on traversing the nuclear road.
    :: The selfishness and greed are heaped at the feet of the fossil fuel industry and their greedy paid minions in the anti-nuke industry.

    >> They boast about innovation and creativity, yet are blind and unwilling to explore more morally-correct and responsible alternatives to our needs.
    :: They are working hard to improve things, but it is hard to improve the nearly perfect!
    One big improvement would be to go to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors instead of uranium based fuels.

    >> It remains for conscientious, civil society to take more impacting actions on the whole nuclear chain from uranium mining to research and development and manufacturing, to bring about the nuclear-free world that we know can free us from the nuclear-armageddon that is waiting to happen!
    :: Wow, you must hate people. That is quite a jump from mining for nuclear power to "nuclear armageddon"! Please learn a little REAL history, not the crud spewed out by the fossil fuel minions called the anti-nuke industry.
  • Aghogoly on October 24 2013 said:
    Everyone, please guns down!
    Why each of you think he himself has the solution to Russian's specified problem?
    This is science and any scientist knows that the only way to solve a problem is to first specify the problem.
    Then use the "scientific method" to investigate it and propose a theory which is not for sure without risk and further problems.
    They can only improve the theory and lower the rate of falsifiability.
    If anyone has the solution to energy crisis tell me cause I will kill you before you can interfere with my balance of power and world control equation.

Leave a comment