Russia unveils world's first floating nuclear power station

By Alexander NEMENOV

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2018 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

BungleToday 06:30 am JST

Easy to decommission: tow into deep waters and scuttle.

And pollute the ocean and maritime food chain, sounds like a plan!

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Yup, an accident just waiting to happen. Idiots.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Guess they never learned much from the nuclear sub still sitting down below, waiting for disaster. This thing could easily be used as a weapon, or just a major accident.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Not the first.

Panama Canal had a USA 10MW nuclear power ship one during the 1970s, the USS Sturgis (converted to nuclear in 1963) to ensure power in the area.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Not sure I would trust this thing not to go nuclear at the wrong time. That said, I wonder why nuclear powered ships are not sailed to areas of natural disaster, like Puerto Rico, and used to give emergency power.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Not to mention the Farallon Islands nuclear waste dump just off the coast of San Francisco.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What is the lifetime of nuclear waste? What is the lifetime of an iron barge?

Aw, forget it, cake today and pass the problems to our children.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Guess they never learned much from the nuclear sub still sitting down below, waiting for disaster.

The US Navy lost 2 nuclear subs still resting on the ocean floor and the Russians 7 subs with 6 subs rusting underwater.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Couldn't they have painted it better, rather than looking something like Chocolate Sandwich Cake ?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So its not a submarine?

those are rotting away far away from Fukushima.

0 ( +3 / -3 )


4th generation molten salt reactions can burn waste from earlier generation reactors and don't use water for cooling.

Because the US Navy was behind all the initial nuclear research, water cooling was very natural. There are a multitude of other nuclear reactions that aren't based on uranium and produce waste with much shorter half-lives than what is currently used.

There are some downsides for some of the reactions, serious downsides, but using less than 8kg of fuel a year (vs 20 metric tons) and going from 300K years for storage to just 200 yrs are some pretty great upsides. These are for the same energy output.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Very good for preventing a meltdown.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Easy to decommission: tow into deep waters and scuttle.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Not the first. There was one of these in Fukushima :P

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Interesting. It's probably state of the art tech so I don't understand some of the debbie downers here. Besides, if there ever was a cooling problem, they've probably installed a way to manually pump cold salt water into the system.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites