Why Russia Built a Floating Nuclear Power Plant 

there is always opportunities even on a considerable disaster that can be global warming

Russia: finally a year around warm coast

it is not global warming, it is end of ice age

Technically there's a reason for Russia to even look forward to global warming, since their masses of useless land will finally become useful and even if they lose the coasts to the molten poles, it won't be too tragic for them considering their size

@@mrgopnik5964 there are no global warming, it is just end of ice age. Humanity's effect on global temperature is somewhere near zero

@@biIIybob858 that's not him silly

Supreme Leader 🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️

@@dhiren7787 shhhhh

@@dhiren7787 r/whoosh

kim jong un pls release my family i miss them

УЭS

@@liverii6540 da

More of a disturbing image

And boomers still say stuff like all this is not real.

#1 reason: access to cold water 🌊 for cooling, as nuclear power ☢️ 🔋 plants require a LOT of water to cool the reactor. @4:00 This could also contribute to global warming 🌏 🥵 since it is happening in the arctic! 😳🤯

@@bthemedia lmao wtf is with all the emojis?

@@bthemedia No, stop that crap right away. The amount of wasteheat is incredibly tiny compared to the amount of water in an ocean, not to mention its a very cold ocean. Many of the much higher power commercial reactors (around 1000MW) use river water as their third loop (condensation loop) and few metres away from the point where they realease the warm water it temperatures drops off to the background. If you consider the scales such reacors would literally mean warm drops in an huge cold ocean.

They are looking out for their rivalling organization these days... BlackWar :D

Most public anti-nuclear concerns are caused by dumbasses who have no idea how a power plant works. Fossil fuel power plants have caused way more accidents and have taken way more lives than nuclear power plants.

@@spinyslasher6586 well that also makes sense because the fossil fuel plants have been around for twice or three times as long as the nuclear ones. So any comparisons will need to be adjusted for time scale as well.

Most expensive electricity in the world. Ingenious.

Yup, I bet lots of communities are remote in Russia

@@vinny5638 even when adjusted for time scale the fatality rates for fossil fuel power plants far exceed nuclear power plants.

He mentions at 3:06 the Pevek NPP and that Academic Lomonosov will replace it

@@DD-pw3cu He mentiones Chaunskaya coal power plant in Pevek, while NPP is in Bilibino, they both work in the same grid, and both shall be replaced, the only difference is that in Pevek there is an NPP now, and in Bilibino there shall be a new heat power plant.

So with so much highly sophisticated nuclear engineering, science, technology en knowledge can Russia fall short of ammunition, military equipment for such a small military operation in Ukraine

Rosatom does nuclear engineering, science, technology, mining en production en waste handling en reusing by itself, how can Russia fail to build or manufacture world most sophisticated weaponry, nuclear only dey been in ds for more than 8 decades if not a century

@@user-gh5zw6kj3r It doesn't "fall short".

Its hard to build on a good bunch of their land

No more Chernobyl never again hence

They're building them on land too...

@@zolikoff its a joke

Russia's very size is precisely why it makes more sense to build seafaring power plants: If you can freely move the power source to where it's needed (oil and gas exploration, etc.), there's no need to build a vast network of long transmission lines, which can be prohibitively expensive (especially in remote, scantly developed areas), or to ask local authorities for permission to pass, which would inhibit the power plant's mobility. This is an elegant solution.

Can it power my ebike?

More like a barge actually. The two new nuclear icebreakers types, as well as most of the Russian submarines are more powerful.

You really how small of a village it is right? 70mW is plenty

@@sweatyatoms7719 Yes. Together with all your stinking city and homeless people lying on the street

Там установленно 2 реактора "РИТМ-200", оба реактора выдают мощность около 400МВт. На следующей строящемся плавучнй станции и новом ледоколе будут использоваться реактора "РИТМ-400", что позволяет удвоить мощность.

In video they not said two additional functions of this plant - it produce heat for city (in Russia centralized heat system) and desalination of water. This plant supply city with a) electricity b) heat c) drink water.

Trust they design a smaller one that may be carried by road

@@KGopidas Those would be called SMR's (Small modular reactors) and they're definitely in the works.

You cannot make plastic yoghurt can from uranuim, you need dat oil.

legolegs How about recycling that plastic

@@Petri_Pennala I'm not against recycling, but it is not 100% efficient while every year you need more and more yoghurt cans. Also some plastic products like pipes are never recycled, you need hydrocarbons for those.

@@Petri_Pennala only some plastics can be reused, other important plastics have chemical composition that doesn't allow it

Yeah, they probably did not make that for the purpose of being environmentaly friendly.

Make it Canada, Sweden, or any Western countries instead of Russia and suddenly it's actually a good thing lol. What a hypocrite

True, but this one is dedicated to the peaceful use of nuclear power, so it must be evil. ...Those Russians...!

Thanks!

@@neoexplains what happened to the intro ? It was majestic,out of this world..😢

It will be back. I didn’t consider this a „mapped“ video therefore I didn’t use it

@@neoexplains pheww😥 Also ,i know many said it but your content is really good, keep it up 😉

@@neoexplains Please do more "mapped" videos! They're awesome!

“Maximized to propel growth in arctic region” 😆😳😱 @4:00 This could also contribute to global warming 🌏 🥵 since it is happening in the arctic! 😳🤯

Nuclear power plants require a lot of water 🌊 for cooling and output lots of hot water.

In Indonesia too we use the floating coal plant from Turkish company. Hope next time we can build our own floating power plant, especially from nuclear energy. There are still many negative opinion from Indonesian for using nuclear and this Russian floating nuclear plant is one of the solutions.

@@bthemedia you obviously have no idea what you are talking about! Nuclear powerplant could contribute to Global Warming because it uses water cooling systems is like saying that pissing while swimming is doing the same! Greenhouse gases create CO2 that warms the planet, not dumping hot water!Japanese are dumping 500 billion gallons of radioactive water into the Ocean but nobody talks about it!

@@agailham8476 a shame really, most people don't even know that nuclear power plants actually harness thermal energy, meaning the "smoke" coming out of those giant chimneys are actually water steam.

ye even i miss it sed.

try to listen to sovietwave music, you will like it

2021: You've seen nothing yet

....I don't even want to know anymore..

Hahaha

RoguellVoid ☠️

Land based nuclear power plants will always be custom designs, due to different soil composition and hundreds of other factors at each specific site. Russia was trying to do serial approach ever since 80es and it didn't worked out - every new plant has to be modified for a site specifics even if the reactors are the same.

Gor Mor Thank you! I didn’t know that; it explains a lot, as design reuse seems unconsidered here.

Nuclear is far safer than every form of renewables. I would put nuclear tech in the forefront well ahead of renewables. The only time solar or wind make sense at all is on a small scale, in a remote area. And now because of Russia that remote area needs to be away from the sea. So maybe a small village in Africa, off-grid, and with plenty of sunshine? Yeah solar makes sense. Other than that, not so much. Wind almost never makes real sense. I agree that we need to pursue pre-fab nuclear reactors. They can be made cookie cutter in the factory and safety inspected before ever being deployed. Much of the local reactor (concrete footing, etc.) can be built with lower skilled construction workers. Then you drop the actual reactor into place and flip the switch. The new Gen 3+ reactors are already walk-away safe. Many of the Gen 4 reactors will be able to recycle nuclear waste and use it as fuel. It will burn through all the long-life waste and create short-life waste that's about 1000 times easier to manage. I'm also in favor of finding creative ways to shrink the minimum size of a useful modular reactor. Then nearly all ships and boats can use nuclear instead of petroleum. This would increase the advantage of mass production and lower the average cost. If you can make the reactor small enough that a 30 meter boat can run on one, the 30 meter boats will become very popular and the 29 meter boats will become very expensive. Maybe the Gen 4+ reactors would be modular enough to fit on a 20 meter boat, in which case the 19 meter boats will still need petroleum and become more expensive to own/operate.

@@protorhinocerator142on small boats the safety and cost would our way the benefits. With smallish vessels I think fossil fuels will always be king and ccs which is incredibly flawed can be used for that. However on big tankers, cruise ships, cargo vessels and the likes could definetly benefit from a nuclear makeover

@Walker who told you that? Cnn?

@Walker lol are you actually serious right now, these are mostly military catastrophes, do you want me to make a list about us man made catastrophes? I'm not even russian but what you talking is a nonsense

@Walker only ak? What about sputnik 1 or 1 man in the space? What about all russian inventions, tv, radio, transformers, helicopters, grane harvesters.. Idk why im wasting my time with such a brainwashed moron like you

@@del1nk798 Good Answer he don't have a clue about US disasters

@@del1nk798 you are actually biased. Try actually using Russian "engineering" yourself, before writing this BS. They couldn't even make a car themselves. Those are made - worsened copies of the fiats and ripoffs of the american cars. What are you talking about? Even the well-known Kalashnikov was engineered with the help of German POVs after the WW2. Russian engineering is a joke.

Yep.

Big Brain

@Light Morningstar Fucking lol no it can't. The fuel used in nuclear reactors is nowhere near enriched enough to make a chain reaction powerful enough to result in a nuclear explosion. There would be a lot of steam if the reactors melted down, but that's *if* they melted down. The reactors are the same design as those already in use on Russian icebreakers.

Yeah right, and contaminate the whole ocean in the process. Looks like they want a second Chernobyl.

@@eyeofthetiger6002 Lol, Fukushima and the 50 years of atomic testing in the Pacific didn't contaminate the whole ocean. It didn't even raise radiation levels above the background of all the dissolved radioactive isotopes of Uranium and Potassium already in the water.

It's a barge with no propulsion at all. You can't "drive" it anywhere on it's own.

@@cianakril well, tow it there then. Same principle.

I don't understand why they don't use some of the power to power the ship, rather than making it unable to move unless it is being towed. They are supposed to be so technologically advanced so they have built a big floating thing that can't even move on its own.

@@MrVlad12340 it's like a fight you have to remember it takes 2

@@Awake-Free-CT Building a nuclear power plant on a barge without diesel propulsion is not a matter of technological progress but practical decision.

Such as deep sea oil drilling? A nuclear disaster such a Chernobyl will not affect EU this time but the entire world. you would be amazed how fast ocean moves and who knows how much marine life will suffer, we haven't even explored the ocean yet.

@@mvpsandeep agree but what about folks in yemen in flooded areas in india or any where in the wolrd that needs power for emergency this can be used. So theres an argument between the bad effects outweighs the good effects.

@Quinton Jewett for the right price and connections they will

@Quinton Jewett nice family name describes your personality very well

@@mvpsandeep Capitalism has already sucking your mind eh? This floating power plant will be helping many developing country, especially those who have a small amount of land rather than the water in its nation. Island/archipelago nation will be benefited much. Ofc safety is number 1, you can't just put it and not concerning it will leaks the enviroment and become an environmental disaster

Wow, this is very well thought out

"No major power (China or US) would dare sinking one of these" - How do you even imagine that the US or China decided to sink any ship in Russian territorial waters? Russia is carefully monitoring its borders, and will strike back immediately.

You wouldn't have "fallout" from something like a ship if reactor went bad it would melt through the ship and go to the bottom of the ocean along with the sinking ship. Do you even know what fallout is?

@@eraserstp well they won't dare to sink these power plants he means

@@eraserstp and besides why would China sink one of these, since they are allies for a LONG TIME

Lol, and the rest of what we do is negative? :))) Boy are you filled with propaganda

@@ursa_margo :)

such a trash human comment

@@ursa_margo they'll hate us all no matter what all we left is to fight.

When we grew up we were taught lots of lies, ir That first person to land on the moon was an American, Armstrong with da appollo 11, ds very big lies, en most books have dz lies

First person to land on da moon was Russian, Yuri gargur

M not good with his last name spelling

Chinese en Russians talk less en do more

Americans en British preach too much en do less

you'd think they would at least put some propulsion on it, you know, bring an enormous power plant an all

I'd guess that putting a propulsion/navigation/control system on it just for the two trips it makes once every 12-15 years would be quite a waste. It's cheaper to just tow it. If you do expect to move it several times a year I might understand, but if it's largely just fixed in place most of its life then it's not worth it.

I agree with the guy above me, it would be useless to have a complicated steam turbine rusting. Plus, there would be no way this sails alone trough the artic, since it needs an icebreaker escort anyway

@@ignacioaguirrenoguez6218 yep. Add a propulsion and ice reinforced hull to sail through the Arctics and you essentially get a 40 years old Arktika I icebreaker that Russia is currently phasing out. It would be a mediocre icebreaker that still would be better in navigating ships than standing moored at a port, and at the same time several fold more expensive and overcomplicated as a power plant.

About Japan: yes, and money for reconstruction was stolen. Purpose of reconstruction was to strengthen the plant to withstand such impact. So 2 nuclear incidents were due to corruption and stupidity of top management.

Chernobyl was the result of an experiment gone wrong, it was ruin by poorly trained staff, there's something called xenon poisoning in nuclear physics, this means that if a reactor is turned off it can't be turned on for 3 days. Fukushima was shit positioning of a plant, in a place that's been hit by tsunami for the entire of recorded history, idiots.

3 mile island was a partial meltdown does that count?

Plenty of reactors melting down no one's talking about look up Boeing's meltdown in California

Lmao you know shit about nuclear incidents

The problem is how we extract oil, if we can extract oil and use it without carbon emisions and shit.

Next project: Nuclear powered oil rigs Lmao

@@guycross493 well YES this is the plant for theese oilrigs

@@miguelmalvina5200 If you plan on combusting the oil you literally can't use it without creating emissions.

Do you know that oil is not only fuel? Fuel is only small portion of all the applications. Your pants are probably made out of the oil fractions, so is the asphalt for the roads and all plastics items. Oil will be drilled until it runs dry and no amount of electric cars or solar plants will change this.

My thoughts exactly.

There is an element of that i assume. But the main reason is Russia has a lot of remote arctic villages that can't be easily accessed by land or air and these villages need more electricity. The problem is installing power lines to these villages would be costly, difficult and dangerous. So Russia is doing the comparatively easy thing by building these floating power plants that they can park right next to the village and hook them up.

It would irradiate the ocean though. I guess it is the better of to evils.

Pressurized water reactors are installed at Akademik Lomonosov, they are much safer than the Chernobyl-type reactors. These reactors also installed on the LASH carrier Sevmorput and icebreakers Taimyr and Vaygach, and have been sufficiently tested in operation for many years.

The plant need to be connected to the port infrastructure, there's no use of it 30 km offshore.

@@cianakril big wire, i realise voltage loss and all that but its almost "free" power

Coming from a coal dominated US state that tried but abandoned nuclear power projects, Ontario, Canada's energy grid would be an absolute dream for us. Our air quality is ass.

@@eriklakeland3857 Then start organizing and maybe one day your dream of a clean power grid could be a reality. Many of those coal miners could be retrained for the nuclear industry. It takes many people with many different skills to keep an NPP operating at it's best. But first you gotta organize with people and demand nuclear power. If enough people demand it then it'll be impossible to ignore.

Yeah america 1# *sips cola*

Ur blinded lol

Submarines can handle tsunamis, ships can't

@@TeddyKrimsony Yes, it's impossible for a barge that is manned 24/7 to loosen up the anchors to adjust for the increased sea level. 😒

@@TeddyKrimsony Aircraft carrier says hi

This is one we can almost entirely blame on the baby boomers and the "hell no we won't glow" morons.

he just said in the video that there an incident of a radioactive leak in an ice-breaker ship. please keep your nuclear power inland and away from the oceans where it can spread to the whole fucking world.

“They manage to take care of their nuclear waste”... how is this???

#1 reason for Arctic: free access to cold water 🌊 for cooling, as nuclear power ☢️ 🔋 plants require a LOT of water to cool the reactor.

@4:00 This could also contribute to global warming 🌏 🥵 since it is happening in the arctic! 😳🤯

@@bthemedia they havent had any "leaks" from nuclear waste storage places. Sure we can imporove how we do it but atleast they are heading the right way. Its not perfect but its going forward

Yes great leader

It's from a failed nuclear test, not from these plants

"Cities: Skylines - Arctic " EXPANSION

Nope - Fukushima already did it

This on steroids = US carrier fleet

sidharth cs nah we build our shit good

Why Chernobyl? Why not Fukushima, or Three Mile Island? What Russians have with Chernobyl? Chernobyl is Ukrainian!

From dhaka?

@@maven8653 yes. But from village in Dhaka District.

@@rabbiahmed7150 Yeah bro metropolitian area

@@maven8653 No District area.

@@rabbiahmed7150 ok haha

Yeah. Because when an ugly wind turbine breaks down, we don't have to worry about death and disease

@@RankinMsP nuclear power plants are not as dangerous as they were in the past, plus they are way more effective than solar panels and wind turbines who for their expenses generate little to no power on their own, while also being quite eco-friendly

@@sekacek-sl3jo until.something goes wrong and entire populations, land Mass and waters are devastated. I appreciate you taking time to explain it to me but Japan showed that anymore can get it wrong, no matter how thorough we think they are.

@Pete is never wrong this means a lot from someone who is never wrong. 😁

That's the naval type reactors. They don't melt down. They have not enough energy and nuclear fuel enrichment for this kind of reaction.

Tsunamis affect ships that are near the shore, that's where the wave rises high. For those ships far out offshore, it's no threat at all.

@@faustin289It depends how deep the water is under it, but true, I would hope they would end up half a mile off shore at the least.

There is no and can't be a tsunami in the Arctic ocean.

Is this Tsunami territory?

In the short period of being online maybe it could be zero emission. The production of the nuclear fuel surely isn't. Neither is the safeguarding of nuclear waste for the next few million years.

because oil mining industry pretty much owns the government. That's how things are in capitalist russia: you break a window on a cop car and go to jail for two years, but when a giant oil company spills over 27000 tonns of diesel all over Siberian forests and rivers because *they couldn't be fucking bothered to perform some basic fucking maintainence on their storage units once SINCE THE FALL OF THE UNION,* and all it's owner gets is a slap on the wrist and an order to clean it up from their own pocket. No fine, no jail sentence, no resignation. Furthermore, who gets most investments? Oil companies. Who gets tax returns and cheap loans? Oil companies. Who constantly asks russian government for more tax cuts and subsides?! Motherfracking oil companies!! Last year government cranked up retirement age by five years because they couldn't find 2 billion roubles for social security checks. Care to guess how much subsidies oil industry fucking got in the same year? YES, THESE TWO BILLION FUCKING ROUBLES. And a year before that they raised sales tax again because they couldn't cover budget deficit any other way. Budget THAT HAD FUCKING SUBSIDIES FOR FUCKING OIL INDUSTRY IN IT!!!

@@nakedonthebeach safeguarding the nuclear "waste" for few millions years? Seriously? Haven't you heard of fast breaders and the full nuclear cycle? Russia uses the "waste" as a fuel in the other reactors, it needs not to safeguard anything for few millions years.

@@RagingDong Not really. Production always costs something but this effect is offset by the savings of renewable energy quite quickly depending on the source. What he pointed out is the production of fuel, something wind or solar energy are not depending on and is a constant burden.

@@deptusmechanikus7362 Russia is not capitalis, it is oligarchy.

The American government should man up and show its muscles to Russia and Putin instead of TARGETING me and ISIOLATING me when i am just a poor weak and unarmed Bosniak who was in a WAR at the age of 8. Btw it is NOT my fault that i am ugly to most and that many girls really hurt my feelings by calling me ugly and playing with me..........anger is here!!!!!!!