Russia has plans to build a floating nuclear power plant ship

Russia-nucler-reactor-ship( via OKBM )

Russia is expected to press a floating nuclear power plant into service in the year 2016. The floating vessel is expected to provide electricity to remote locations in Russia where building a nuclear reactor is simply not feasible due to costs and safety hazards, according to Gizmodo and RT reports.

The ship will go by the name Akademik Lomonosov and is only part of a much bigger planned fleet of floating power plants which will be based on nuclear reactors found on currently operating ice-breaking vessels. These literal powerhouses will utilize two modified KLT-40 naval propulsion reactors which are capable of producing energy to the magnitude of 7 0MW of electricity or 300 MW of heat. The RT report estimates that this amount of energy is enough for a city of population around 200 000.

These ships can also be altered to produce desalinated water — around 240 000 cubic meters daily. Several other countries such as China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Namibia, Cape Verde and Argentina have shown an interest in this technology.

Although as we know many people are concerned about the use of anything involving the word nuclear, the manufacturer of the ships insists that their vessels comply with regulations stipulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which speaks to the prevention of the spreading of nuclear weapons. Additionally, the RT report states that the floating vessels are constructed such that they are immune to tsunami waves or any possible crashes which is a trump card in terms of safety.

I have my concerns about nuclear power but this could actually be a good idea.

[via Gizmodo, RT, image via OKBM]

Related Posts


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Darcy

    For all the problems with nuclear waste, and they are huge problems indeed, nuclear power does less environmental damage than almost any other power source we have. Coal, oil, even hydroelectric power is more directly harmful to the environment. The big trouble is the length of time nuclear waste is hazardous makes it more damaging in the long run IMO.

  2. Louis

    Desalination of water on a large and cost-efficient scale will be vital to this world within 50 years, that is my prediction, since there are only so many icebergs that will remain to be towed anywhere at that time.

    If nuclear is what it takes, then nuclear is what it must be — just find a permanent secure way to bury the waste without it becoming a threat ever, and that may be the way to go.

    In fact, the biggest problem with nuclear is obviously the radiation in event of a burnout near residential areas etc — if we can keep these ships away from where people live, and out of the shipping lanes, it may solve yet another problem for the distant future