7 ms·

> "Rosatom plans to serially produce such floating nuclear plants, and is exploring various business plans, including retaining ownership of the reactors while

> "Rosatom plans to serially produce such floating nuclear plants, and is exploring various business plans, including retaining ownership of the reactors while selling the electricity they generate." No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim. I think what the Russian Govt realized is that instead of building nuclear power plants, its going to be more profitable to hold the electric grid of some country hostage, just like the hard profit they make holding Europe hostage with their gas pipelines. EDIT: There a lot more issues I have with their idea but that was the one most striking to me. - How are going to supply electricity during a hurricane ? Most cites are located on the path to some hurricane / cyclone / tornado. - Coastlines near cities are expensive real estate (not to mention anyone with property there allowing a literal power nuclear plant blocking their view ) - it takes important real estate from ports that are much more useful for docking ships, etc. Its possible to build a separate port far away from the city; but then you have to pay the extra cost of building some extra infrastructure to deal with the ship, at that point its just easier to build your own power plant. - "Rosatom, in a statement, insisted its plant was 'invulnerable to tsunamis.'" Really ?? why are they trying to sell dumb electricity when they have the much more valuable technology of invincible ships. How many tsunamis has one of their ships survived exactly ?

gaius 8y ago
No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim. Western Europe is already critically dependent on Russian gas pipelines, so this would be no biggie. Russia needs the foreign currency desperately so it won’t act lightly.
- wrong_variable 8y ago
  Western Europe is well aware of this fact this is why they are desperate to get the pipeline from Qatar built - which is not going anywhere because of destabilization in Syria (The pipeline needs to pass through Syria). Hmm.. I wonder which foreign power is helping prop up the Assad Regime Also Germany is building HVDC lines from solar power plants is Spain. Depending on Russia has already got us in the mess where Europe is unable to hold them accountable for a lot of crimes they have committed on European soil.
  - mladenkovacevic 8y ago
    Because Assad was going to let a Qatar pipeline go through Syria in the first place? Hmm I wonder which foreign powers destabilized Syria and have been trying to overthrow the current government for close to 7 years now.
    - wrong_variable 8y ago
      " On 1 June 2012, President Assad vowed to crush the anti-government uprising. On 12 June 2012, the UN for the first time officially proclaimed Syria to be in a state of civil war. " - Wikipedia I am sorry but the conspiracy Theory that the US had anything to do with starting the Syrian conflict is simply not true.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I am sorry but the conspiracy Theory that the US had anything to do with starting the Syrian conflict is simply not true. The US had a lot do with it, but by (among other things) bungling the occupation of Iraq, not by any deliberate policy.
      - mladenkovacevic 8y ago
        I didn't mention US in my post, but since you insist... here is what is declassified and publicly known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
        wrong_variable 8y ago
        I do not see anything wrong with providing weapons to people who are being literally slaughtered by their own govt. There is no evidence that any foreign govt helped cause the Syrian Civil War in the first place.
        mladenkovacevic 8y ago
        You first said that the Qatar pipeline is not going anywhere because of destabilization in Syria... I guess you should've been honest from the beginning and said that it's not going anywhere because the project to remove Assad from power has failed.
coenhyde 8y ago
Well the Australian government(s) aren't sane then. We've been privatizing our power plants for decades, and iirc some owned by Government owned Chinese enterprises. EDIT: For what it's worth. I don't have a problem with foreign ownership of the powerplants. But I do have a problem with privatization in a market without much competition.
- wrong_variable 8y ago
  ownership is different from actually having ops capabilities, I do not think there is a button somewhere is Beijing that China can use to just turn off Australian power plant on Australian soil. The most China can do to sell the asset and temporary depress its price.
  - coenhyde 8y ago
    agreed
  - bdamm 8y ago
    As a vector for inserting software viruses ownership is second to none.
  - manicdee 8y ago
    The Australian market is routinely manipulated by pretending to turn off equipment until the price rises sufficiently to pretend to turn the equipment on just in time for the high price market. So yes, there is "a button somewhere" that a private owner can use to just turn off Australian power plants on Australian soil.
    - adventured 8y ago
      That's interesting, the US has an almost entirely privatized energy generation market and doesn't routinely have that problem. I've read a bit about Australia's energy problems over the years, I'm unaware of how they regulate pricing though. The US has very strict rules in place for its private utilities. Private + tight controls has resulted in the US having close to the cheapest power in the developed world. Roughly 1/3 the cost of Germany's or Australia's electricity. Privatization doesn't explain Australia's numerous disastrous energy choices and policies.
a-priori 8y ago
If that happened, the client government could nationalize the reactor and seize control of it. This would provoke a diplomatic incident, of course, but that'd be something for the two governments to sort out. Or, less aggressively, they would retain enough reserve power generation capacity to replace the electricity. For example, have gas plants that can be spun up on demand if the nuclear reactors were shut off. Either way, a government isn't going to be held ransom by Rosatom.
- wrong_variable 8y ago
  > "Or, less aggressively, they would retain enough reserve power generation capacity to replace the electricity. For example, have gas plants that can be spun up on demand if the nuclear reactors were shut off." If your country has the capabilities to build reserve power plants why allow the Russians to get all the profit from the power market ? You could just spin up your gas plants indefinitely. Nuclear power is also not cheap, and the main cost is associated with risk (disposing of waste, etc), I am sorry but if their is one area where you cant be cheap its nuclear power. Also the countries that Russia seems to target are poor countries with weak governments like Sudan (not to mention Sudan's main cites are all far away from the coast). Most poor countries these days are located in perfect places for solar energy, which is anyway cheaper than nuclear.
  - biggusdickus 8y ago
    1) longterm gas fuel costs 2) most gas comes from Russia anyway (for Yurop)
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Nuclear power is also not cheap, and the main cost is associated with risk (disposing of waste, etc), I am sorry but if their is one area where you cant be cheap its nuclear power. I see nuclear power as being just as susceptible to off-shoring the dirty parts as any other industry. Russia could just dump all the waste in a mine in Siberia and even if they did a terrible job it would be a century before anyone noticed. Until the waste containment becomes a problem this would be a win-win because the buyer can say they're buying environmentally friendly nuclear energy and the Russians can make money hand over fist.
cr1895 8y ago
>How many tsunamis has one of their ships survived exactly A tsunami in sufficiently deep water is basically imperceptible. It’s only a problem once the sea floor starts pushing the water up.
- wrong_variable 8y ago
  The ship wont be in deep water though but in the shoreline ! You are safe in either direction, either 15 km inland of 15+ km offshore.
  - fghhfgg 8y ago
    A 15km underwater line is not a problem.
rtkwe 8y ago
> "Rosatom, in a statement, insisted its plant was 'invulnerable to tsunamis.'" > - Coastlines near cities are expensive real estate (not to mention anyone with property there allowing a literal power nuclear plant blocking their view ) - it takes important real estate from ports that are much more useful for docking ships, etc. Its possible to build a separate port far away from the city; but then you have to pay the extra cost of building some extra infrastructure to deal with the ship, at that point its just easier to build your own power plant. Both of these are pretty easily solved by floating the plant a short distance off the shore and laying a power line along the sea floor. Tsunami's aren't an issue till right along the shore and the ship would practically disappear if it were just a bit off shore.
- wrong_variable 8y ago
  You are still leaving out storm surges etc. The ocean is a terrible place for infrastructure, its why we only do it if we really have no other option (offshore oil rigs etc).
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    Storm surge isn't a danger to a ship unless it's docked on shore or gets pushed ashore. It's really not that different from a tsunami in that regard a ship at sea just moves up with the bulk of the water.
    - justinator 8y ago
      Oh, ships sink in the middle of the ocean, I believe, with utmost certainty.
pizzetta 8y ago
>No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim. Hasn't Gasprom done this [cut supply] in the past but continues to have customers in Europe? If it's cheap enough they will probably have customers.
- Bendingo 8y ago
  After a long running dispute over theft of gas intended for western Europe, Gasprom cut off gas to Ukraine for 3 days in winter 2006 [1]. Note that Naftogaz (Ukraine gas organisation) later admitted to this theft, which was worth $3 billion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
  - gandhium 8y ago
    Please note, that no theft was admitted by Naftogaz (outside usual Russian circle of propaganda).
fghhfgg 8y ago
Off shore drilling rigs aren’t anchored to he floor, but the pipe could literally snap if the rig floats away. They are kept in place solely by GPS and thrust vectoring. The Ruskies are going to use the same technology here, known for decades, and probably safer than oil rigs since there nothing to snap and a small volume to protect if the whole thing sinks.
- wrong_variable 8y ago
  - Your account was created 8 minutes ago - defending some press release coming out of Russia. How is the weather today in Moscow ?
  - dang 8y ago
    This breaks the HN guidelines by being (1) a personal attack, (2) nationalistic flamewar, and (3) insinuation of astroturfing without evidence. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - fghhfgg 8y ago
    Wouldn’t know. Typing from a desk in a USA govt. lab. waiting for an experiment to finish :S I lurk and create accounts to comment on single articles I like. Mea Culpa. Don’t like the floating reactor? Fine, give me good reasons. Like: how do they deal with a core meltdown that melts through ship? Where’s the waste going to go? Why have nuclear at all? Why not a floating fossil fuel plant? How does it deal with freak waves? [edit] The Russians a have a terrible safety record at sea (not that bad on land) The unforeseen happens. What then? Instead some mumbling about tsunamis from someone who clearly knows little about tsunamis. That being said, your logic is scary: “New account. Defends Russia [btw, I don’t think I defended Russia]. Quick, call the guards!” You remind me of the anti-gay protestors at grad school whose logic was impenetrable (indeed flawless; it was an axiomatic issue) We’re f-ed
- seabrookmx 8y ago
  > nothing to snap There's still an electrical cable, but I would assume it's more durable than an underwater oil pipeline.
scrumper 8y ago
> - "Rosatom, in a statement, insisted its plant was 'invulnerable to tsunamis.'" > Really ?? why are they trying to sell dumb electricity when they have the much more valuable technology of invincible ships. How many tsunamis has one of their ships survived exactly ? A 10' dinghy in deep water is pretty well invulnerable to tsunamis. Invulnerability to hurricanes would be an entirely different proposition.
- mcguire 8y ago
  In deep water. Not moored at the coast providing electricity.
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    It could be moored off shore similar to Offshore Wind Farms.
fghhfgg 8y ago
Also, these are small plants; not the amount of power that would cripple a country. Make its e-supply more reliable, yes. But not replace the bulk of the supply. For that Rosatom will sell you a few GW units on land
phobosdeimos 8y ago
"holding Europe hostage with their gas pipelines" Only countries that can't or won't pay. Take Ukraine, all the gas destined for Germany and the Netherlands (people who have payed their bills on time since 1950) had to go through them. Russia couldn't shut down those Ukrainian deadbeats because then they would lose billions. The world is not black or white.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Ukraine doesn't buy Russian gas for years. :-/
rdl 8y ago
> No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim. Doesn’t Europe, and in particular Germany, already do this with Russian natural gas?

gaius 8y ago

No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim. Western Europe is already critically dependent on Russian gas pipelines, so this would be no biggie. Russia needs the foreign currency desperately so it won’t act lightly.

wrong_variable 8y ago
Western Europe is well aware of this fact this is why they are desperate to get the pipeline from Qatar built - which is not going anywhere because of destabilization in Syria (The pipeline needs to pass through Syria). Hmm.. I wonder which foreign power is helping prop up the Assad Regime Also Germany is building HVDC lines from solar power plants is Spain. Depending on Russia has already got us in the mess where Europe is unable to hold them accountable for a lot of crimes they have committed on European soil.
- mladenkovacevic 8y ago
  Because Assad was going to let a Qatar pipeline go through Syria in the first place? Hmm I wonder which foreign powers destabilized Syria and have been trying to overthrow the current government for close to 7 years now.
  - wrong_variable 8y ago
    " On 1 June 2012, President Assad vowed to crush the anti-government uprising. On 12 June 2012, the UN for the first time officially proclaimed Syria to be in a state of civil war. " - Wikipedia I am sorry but the conspiracy Theory that the US had anything to do with starting the Syrian conflict is simply not true.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I am sorry but the conspiracy Theory that the US had anything to do with starting the Syrian conflict is simply not true. The US had a lot do with it, but by (among other things) bungling the occupation of Iraq, not by any deliberate policy.
    - mladenkovacevic 8y ago
      I didn't mention US in my post, but since you insist... here is what is declassified and publicly known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
      - wrong_variable 8y ago
        I do not see anything wrong with providing weapons to people who are being literally slaughtered by their own govt. There is no evidence that any foreign govt helped cause the Syrian Civil War in the first place.
        mladenkovacevic 8y ago
        You first said that the Qatar pipeline is not going anywhere because of destabilization in Syria... I guess you should've been honest from the beginning and said that it's not going anywhere because the project to remove Assad from power has failed.

coenhyde 8y ago

Well the Australian government(s) aren't sane then. We've been privatizing our power plants for decades, and iirc some owned by Government owned Chinese enterprises. EDIT: For what it's worth. I don't have a problem with foreign ownership of the powerplants. But I do have a problem with privatization in a market without much competition.

wrong_variable 8y ago
ownership is different from actually having ops capabilities, I do not think there is a button somewhere is Beijing that China can use to just turn off Australian power plant on Australian soil. The most China can do to sell the asset and temporary depress its price.
- coenhyde 8y ago
  agreed
- bdamm 8y ago
  As a vector for inserting software viruses ownership is second to none.
- manicdee 8y ago
  The Australian market is routinely manipulated by pretending to turn off equipment until the price rises sufficiently to pretend to turn the equipment on just in time for the high price market. So yes, there is "a button somewhere" that a private owner can use to just turn off Australian power plants on Australian soil.
  - adventured 8y ago
    That's interesting, the US has an almost entirely privatized energy generation market and doesn't routinely have that problem. I've read a bit about Australia's energy problems over the years, I'm unaware of how they regulate pricing though. The US has very strict rules in place for its private utilities. Private + tight controls has resulted in the US having close to the cheapest power in the developed world. Roughly 1/3 the cost of Germany's or Australia's electricity. Privatization doesn't explain Australia's numerous disastrous energy choices and policies.

a-priori 8y ago

If that happened, the client government could nationalize the reactor and seize control of it. This would provoke a diplomatic incident, of course, but that'd be something for the two governments to sort out. Or, less aggressively, they would retain enough reserve power generation capacity to replace the electricity. For example, have gas plants that can be spun up on demand if the nuclear reactors were shut off. Either way, a government isn't going to be held ransom by Rosatom.

wrong_variable 8y ago
> "Or, less aggressively, they would retain enough reserve power generation capacity to replace the electricity. For example, have gas plants that can be spun up on demand if the nuclear reactors were shut off." If your country has the capabilities to build reserve power plants why allow the Russians to get all the profit from the power market ? You could just spin up your gas plants indefinitely. Nuclear power is also not cheap, and the main cost is associated with risk (disposing of waste, etc), I am sorry but if their is one area where you cant be cheap its nuclear power. Also the countries that Russia seems to target are poor countries with weak governments like Sudan (not to mention Sudan's main cites are all far away from the coast). Most poor countries these days are located in perfect places for solar energy, which is anyway cheaper than nuclear.
- biggusdickus 8y ago
  1) longterm gas fuel costs 2) most gas comes from Russia anyway (for Yurop)
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Nuclear power is also not cheap, and the main cost is associated with risk (disposing of waste, etc), I am sorry but if their is one area where you cant be cheap its nuclear power. I see nuclear power as being just as susceptible to off-shoring the dirty parts as any other industry. Russia could just dump all the waste in a mine in Siberia and even if they did a terrible job it would be a century before anyone noticed. Until the waste containment becomes a problem this would be a win-win because the buyer can say they're buying environmentally friendly nuclear energy and the Russians can make money hand over fist.

cr1895 8y ago

>How many tsunamis has one of their ships survived exactly A tsunami in sufficiently deep water is basically imperceptible. It’s only a problem once the sea floor starts pushing the water up.

wrong_variable 8y ago
The ship wont be in deep water though but in the shoreline ! You are safe in either direction, either 15 km inland of 15+ km offshore.
- fghhfgg 8y ago
  A 15km underwater line is not a problem.

rtkwe 8y ago

> "Rosatom, in a statement, insisted its plant was 'invulnerable to tsunamis.'" > - Coastlines near cities are expensive real estate (not to mention anyone with property there allowing a literal power nuclear plant blocking their view ) - it takes important real estate from ports that are much more useful for docking ships, etc. Its possible to build a separate port far away from the city; but then you have to pay the extra cost of building some extra infrastructure to deal with the ship, at that point its just easier to build your own power plant. Both of these are pretty easily solved by floating the plant a short distance off the shore and laying a power line along the sea floor. Tsunami's aren't an issue till right along the shore and the ship would practically disappear if it were just a bit off shore.

wrong_variable 8y ago
You are still leaving out storm surges etc. The ocean is a terrible place for infrastructure, its why we only do it if we really have no other option (offshore oil rigs etc).
- rtkwe 8y ago
  Storm surge isn't a danger to a ship unless it's docked on shore or gets pushed ashore. It's really not that different from a tsunami in that regard a ship at sea just moves up with the bulk of the water.
  - justinator 8y ago
    Oh, ships sink in the middle of the ocean, I believe, with utmost certainty.

pizzetta 8y ago

>No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim. Hasn't Gasprom done this [cut supply] in the past but continues to have customers in Europe? If it's cheap enough they will probably have customers.

Bendingo 8y ago
After a long running dispute over theft of gas intended for western Europe, Gasprom cut off gas to Ukraine for 3 days in winter 2006 [1]. Note that Naftogaz (Ukraine gas organisation) later admitted to this theft, which was worth $3 billion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
- gandhium 8y ago
  Please note, that no theft was admitted by Naftogaz (outside usual Russian circle of propaganda).

fghhfgg 8y ago

Off shore drilling rigs aren’t anchored to he floor, but the pipe could literally snap if the rig floats away. They are kept in place solely by GPS and thrust vectoring. The Ruskies are going to use the same technology here, known for decades, and probably safer than oil rigs since there nothing to snap and a small volume to protect if the whole thing sinks.

wrong_variable 8y ago
- Your account was created 8 minutes ago - defending some press release coming out of Russia. How is the weather today in Moscow ?
- dang 8y ago
  This breaks the HN guidelines by being (1) a personal attack, (2) nationalistic flamewar, and (3) insinuation of astroturfing without evidence. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fghhfgg 8y ago
  Wouldn’t know. Typing from a desk in a USA govt. lab. waiting for an experiment to finish :S I lurk and create accounts to comment on single articles I like. Mea Culpa. Don’t like the floating reactor? Fine, give me good reasons. Like: how do they deal with a core meltdown that melts through ship? Where’s the waste going to go? Why have nuclear at all? Why not a floating fossil fuel plant? How does it deal with freak waves? [edit] The Russians a have a terrible safety record at sea (not that bad on land) The unforeseen happens. What then? Instead some mumbling about tsunamis from someone who clearly knows little about tsunamis. That being said, your logic is scary: “New account. Defends Russia [btw, I don’t think I defended Russia]. Quick, call the guards!” You remind me of the anti-gay protestors at grad school whose logic was impenetrable (indeed flawless; it was an axiomatic issue) We’re f-ed
seabrookmx 8y ago
> nothing to snap There's still an electrical cable, but I would assume it's more durable than an underwater oil pipeline.

scrumper 8y ago

> - "Rosatom, in a statement, insisted its plant was 'invulnerable to tsunamis.'" > Really ?? why are they trying to sell dumb electricity when they have the much more valuable technology of invincible ships. How many tsunamis has one of their ships survived exactly ? A 10' dinghy in deep water is pretty well invulnerable to tsunamis. Invulnerability to hurricanes would be an entirely different proposition.

mcguire 8y ago
In deep water. Not moored at the coast providing electricity.
- cptskippy 8y ago
  It could be moored off shore similar to Offshore Wind Farms.

fghhfgg 8y ago

Also, these are small plants; not the amount of power that would cripple a country. Make its e-supply more reliable, yes. But not replace the bulk of the supply. For that Rosatom will sell you a few GW units on land

phobosdeimos 8y ago

"holding Europe hostage with their gas pipelines" Only countries that can't or won't pay. Take Ukraine, all the gas destined for Germany and the Netherlands (people who have payed their bills on time since 1950) had to go through them. Russia couldn't shut down those Ukrainian deadbeats because then they would lose billions. The world is not black or white.

v_lisivka 8y ago
Ukraine doesn't buy Russian gas for years. :-/

rdl 8y ago

> No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim. Doesn’t Europe, and in particular Germany, already do this with Russian natural gas?