Russia Is Building Floating Nuclear Reactors Near the North Pole

"The guys who built Chernobyl, dropped 456 atomic bombs near an area with one million people, and built atomic lighthouses only to abandon them engulfed in radioactive fog, are now building floating nuclear reactors on the Artic Sea.

Here you can see the first of the eight floating nuclear power plants—a ship-platform hybrid that will be finished in 2012. It will be deployed deep into the Arctic circle.

And what do they want them for, so far from the mainland? Because they want to expand their territory one million square kilometers. That's 386,102 square miles of extra territory in the Arctic, all the way to the North Pole.

Russia thinks that there they can drill oil platforms to extract a whooping 75 billion barrels of oil. The nuclear reactors will provide with power and hot water to new colonial towns."

Article Link

BBC News Article

So the chances of seeing alternative "Northern Lights" from the UK have just increased significantly.

Nice move on Russia's part. I wonder if they'll discover Atlantas in their endeavors.

Hopefully they don't paint them a revolting red like they did with their nuclear powered icebreakers. Other than that I'm sure they'll be successful.

Those cheeky Russians always thinking ahead. Oh how they love the cold.

I am quite the fan of Russia, and St Petersburg is just beautiful.

They are playing it smart; planting a foothold in the Arctic & securing the oil reserves ahead of any other nation. If they do everything right, there will be no way of pushing them away from there

Ah, we seriously need to consider building a domed city in Antartica or something.

I recently read that Russia is planning on building/has built a group of floating "reactor" ships-which they intend to rent to third/developing world powers.

They would doch them at the coast of a country and then sell them power...

What could possibly go wrong???

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


I've never heard that. It wouldn't make much sense from a security or economic standpoint either. Russia is planning to use these barges to power parts of the arctic. The closest thing to what you're saying is small modular reactors that require no refueling and very little maintenance, built underground in an inaccessible vault, which may be sold to developing nations.

reply to post by C0bzz


This is from 2007:

At a ceremony on April 15, attended by the head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, and the President of Kurchatov Institute, Yevgeny Velikhov, Russia inaugurated a program to construct the first series of floating nuclear power plants.
Such stand-alone nuclear facilities, which can bring electric power and process heat to remote regions and underdeveloped nations, have been planned for decades. Now the world's first floating nuclear plant is finally under construction.
The first pair of ship-mounted 35-megawatt nuclear reactors, modelled on the units in operation for decades in Russia's submarines and nuclear-powered ice breakers, will be completed in 2010. They will supply power to the Sevmash shipyard, which builds nuclear-powered submarines, and where the ship for the floating plants is under construction.
Some of the electricity from the nuclear plants will also be supplied to a nearby municipality.

And from 2010,Washington are worried about the reactor ships:

WASHINGTON -- Russia is wrapping up work on the first of a proposed fleet of floating nuclear reactors that would provide electricity to remote areas, but that are also more vulnerable to terrorists and even piracy than traditional power stations, experts say (see GSN, Oct. 1, 2007).
Sailing small, modular atomic reactors raises concerns about proliferation, along with their safety in extreme weather conditions and what to do with the radioactive waste they produce.
"The sort of emotional reaction is, well, if you didn't like nuclear power reactors to begin with will you like them any better if they're floating?" Sharon Squassoni, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Proliferation and Prevention Program, said in a recent telephone interview. "Probably not. Whatever problems you have on land, you can equally have on sea only if you have a core meltdown in the water you're going to have a huge radioactive problem on hand."

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org...

Sounds pretty crazy to me,but I am not a big fan of nuclear power...

Originally posted by C0bzz
Hopefully they don't paint them a revolting red like they did with their nuclear powered icebreakers. Other than that I'm sure they'll be successful.

edit on 24/9/2010 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

In a grimy shipyard in St Petersburg, an ugly hulk of red-painted metal sits floating in the dock.

Maybe the power-plant/mining thing is just an excuse and when SHTF, they will be the first ones to escape to the Hollow Earth?

It really does look as though Russia is attempting to take over a large chunk of extra land in the arctic situation.
They have been vocal on the MSM saying"theres no need for any conflict over these areas."
The Russians basically just want to grab all those resources in short order,before anyone else can mobilise or react.
They are doing a fine job of it so far I think.

Timing is key-the other major gameplayers are now too tied into other conflicts and economic woes to get involved up there in the arctic...At least thats what the Russians are gambling IMO.

Could get interesting in a while.

Sounds interesting.
Bet they are getting a lot of help, from people.
Well I don't think Russia likes an external debt service so things might go slow.
What will people do with all that oil.

I wonder if peak oil heard of this.
list

reply to post by Did you see them


Why did you have to quote the rubbish gizmodo article written by some cretin instead of the original, well written BBC story?

Yes, you have issues with the russians and nuclear energy, but you could have mentioned that on the side as your personal opinion.

This is afterall the "science" forum, wich in my mind should have a higher standard, than some of the other sections here in ATS.

The BBC article is much more informative. I suggest everyone read that one. The Gizmodo is full of unnecessary alarmism and hypocrisy. The US has had floating and even submerged nuclear reactors for years that travel to all parts of the globe. It seems like the issue at hand is not an environmental one, but a territorial one, i.e. who owns what part of the Arctic.