The very grave dangers of small nuclear reactors in floating nuclear power
nuclear experts have highlighted crucial negatives that cast doubt on the floating nuclear utopia.Jan Haverkamp, Greenpeace Netherlands senior expert nuclear energy and energy policy, sees the three main disadvantages of Akademin Lomonosov to be the big human factors risk, its problematic construction, and the pollution of the Arctic region with nuclear waste.
this project is reintroducing a major pollution risk in an area which functions as a climate regulator for the globe – “the Arctic pristine area, which is a very important natural area for the entire balance on the planet,”
Is floating nuclear power a good idea? Power Technology By Yoana Cholteeva, 9 Dec 19, Floating nuclear power promises to provide a steady source of energy at hard-to-reach locations, but at the same time the dangers inherent in nuclear power make some question whether it’s safe enough for areas where help is hard to find. Is floating nuclear power really a good idea? Yoana Cholteeva investigates.
Russian nuclear company Rosatom announced the arrival of the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, Akademik Lomonosov, in September 2019 when the technology was transported to the port of its permanent location in Russia’s Far East. The 144m-long and 30m-wide vessel has now docked at the port in Pevek, off the coast of Chukotka, where it will stay before its commissioning next year.
Akademik Lomonosov will use small modular reactor technology and is equipped with two KLT-40C reactor systems with 35MW capacity each. It has been designed to access hard-to-reach areas where it can operate for three to five years without the need for refuelling. It also has an overall life cycle of 40 years, which may be extended to 50 years
The power plant serves as a pilot project for a future fleet of floating nuclear power plants and onshore installations based on small modular reactors made in Russia.
Another intriguing fact is that the energy generated by the reactor will not be transferred through cables in the Arctic Sea, but will only be used to power remote areas which experience obstacles to transfer electricity on land. In these locations, coastal infrastructure, such as wave blocks and power lines, is being implemented.
Considering the far-reaching potential of an invention like Lomonosov, the first plant has provoked debate amongst scientists around the world who have been quick to point out the risks of the technology.
Lomonosov’s potential to set a precedent According to Rosatom, one of the main advantages of the construction is economic as, after being docked, the 21,000-tonne barge will replace an ageing land-based nuclear plant to supply 50,000 people in the area with electricity.
Not only will it produce energy for the ice-covered Arctic region where inhabitants have difficulty accessing traditional energy sources, but upon success the technology could later be exported to other countries with harsh weather conditions, helping many more……
But what can go wrong?
Despite the positive effects highlighted by the Russian Government and Rosatom, nuclear experts have highlighted crucial negatives that cast doubt on the floating nuclear utopia.Jan Haverkamp, Greenpeace Netherlands senior expert nuclear energy and energy policy, sees the three main disadvantages of Akademin Lomonosov to be the big human factors risk, its problematic construction, and the pollution of the Arctic region with nuclear waste.
To start with, Haverkamp points out that the remote area where the nuclear reactor is situated requires a great amount of people braving the weather conditions to get there. “It’s already a challenge to keep workers motivated and satisfied while working at nuclear power stations on remote locations, but easy to reach by airplane or a train connection,” he says, pointing out that travelling to Russia’s Far East on a daily basis increases the risk factor to a level “comparable to the risk of human factors in the military.”
Along with that, if something goes wrong, it is very difficult to get there and rectify things, “way more difficult than it was in Fukushima to send the air fire brigade cars with an earthquake having destroyed the infrastructure,” says Haverkamp.
He also points out that it poses a safety risk because in order to be light enough so it stays floating, some of the safety features usually present on a land-based reactor have to be taken out.“There cannot be as much end-of-the-pipe technology to reduce safety risks and there cannot be a concrete dome over it like we have over land base nuclear power stations,” he adds, because that would increase the risk of the barge sinking.
The third point Haverkamp reinforces is that although this nuclear reactor might seem more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels, the Akademik Lomonosov plan includes the reactor staying at sea for 12 years.
“This means fuel has to be changed about four times, in this time the used fuel which is highly, highly toxic will remain onboard before being shipped off and replaced with fresh fuel,” Haverkamp says.
This leads to a major environmental concern Greenpeace takes into consideration – the fact that this project is reintroducing a major pollution risk in an area which functions as a climate regulator for the globe – “the Arctic pristine area, which is a very important natural area for the entire balance on the planet,” Haverkamp concludes.
No comments yet.
1.This month.
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 
Leave a Reply