Floating Nuclear Plants for Far Places

Nuclear engineer Nikolai N. Frolov has a grand plan to solve the energy problems of the future: a fleet of floating nuclear power stations that could bring electricity to any part of the world accessible by ship.

From the Arctic to the Indian Ocean, dozens of atomic energy plants--all owned by Russia--could be anchored offshore, docked in harbors or even towed upriver to deliver abundant supplies of power. In dry regions, a station could generate enough energy to operate a companion desalination vessel and produce a steady flow of fresh water.

Frolov’s vision is not science fiction. Construction recently began on the world’s first floating nuclear power station, which is planned to serve Russia’s Arctic mining town of Pevek, 700 miles west of Alaska.

“By building floating nuclear power plants, Russia will get a unique opportunity to deliver energy to these remote places,” said Frolov, head of international cooperation at Moscow’s Kurchatov Institute, the leading nuclear research center in Russia. “As far as I understand, no one else in the world is even thinking about building floating nuclear power plants.”

Nearly 12 years after the catastrophic explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, post-Soviet Russia has begun rebuilding its atomic energy program--pushing ahead with a new generation of power plants and offering nuclear bargains around the world.

With a $7-billion plan to build reactors in Iran, China and India, Russia could soon make nuclear energy one of its biggest exports. And at home, Russia has resumed construction of unfinished reactors mothballed because of the Chernobyl disaster; as many as three could be completed next year, officials say.

“We lost a lot on Chernobyl,” lamented Georgy A. Kaurov, a spokesman for Russia’s Ministry of Atomic Energy, which took over most of the Soviet nuclear program. “If not for Chernobyl, we would be one of the leading countries in energy production. Only Chernobyl altered all the plans we had.”

Today, the government insists, nuclear power in Russia is no longer dangerous. The flaws in the Chernobyl-style reactor have been corrected, officials say, and all of the old plants have been retrofitted to prevent another disaster. The new generation of reactors has a different design and, whether the plants are floating or stationary, is “100% safe,” they say.

Yet the atomic legacy that Russia inherited from the Soviet Union suggests otherwise. The Communists’ development of nuclear power resulted in a string of nuclear plant accidents, from a reactor explosion at Chelyabinsk in the 1950s to the Chernobyl meltdown. Over the years, radioactive discharges from nuclear reactors, waste dumps, weapons plants, research labs and aging nuclear submarines have left Russia with a trail of contamination from the Norwegian border to the Far East.

In many regions, Russian citizens have been exposed to high levels of radiation, and reports of birth defects are all too common. In the Siberian town of Chita, for example, many children have been born with deformities because apartments, schools and a hospital were unwittingly built with cement made from the radioactive waste of a uranium mine.

In the military, retaliation against those who have revealed nuclear hazards has been harsh. Naval Capt. Grigory Pasko was arrested in Vladivostok in November, and former Capt. Alexander Nikitin was arrested in St. Petersburg two years ago after each exposed the navy’s improper handling of radioactive material. Both have been charged with high treason.

Russian environmentalists argue that the government should clean up its nuclear waste before embarking on a program to build new atomic power stations. In Moscow, the international group Greenpeace contends that some nuclear plants being built--including the floating station--are illegal under Russian law because they have not received the required environmental review and approval, a claim denied by the government.

“The Ministry of Atomic Energy is trying to expand as much as possible, but they can’t solve the problems of the past,” protested Greenpeace campaign director Ivan Blokov.

*

The disaster at Chernobyl was the ministry’s defining moment. On April 26, 1986, a reactor at the Ukrainian plant exploded and blew a hole in the concrete roof, sending a cloud of radiation over a large part of Europe. Most sources estimate that 6,000 to 8,000 people died from the explosion and exposure to radiation.

But today, ministry officials play down the effect of the accident. They contend that only 41 people died as a direct result of the incident and express regret that in the wake of the accident, the government halted the development of 40 Soviet nuclear reactors in various stages of planning and construction.

“When you look back, the consequences were not as catastrophic and disastrous as they were aggravated by the psychological factor,” Kaurov said. “Of course it’s very bad, but if we take the number of people who die every day and compare it to Chernobyl, there’s no comparison. I think Chernobyl showed that humankind is able to cope with such a disaster.”

For the ministry, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste is not as pressing as the need to create more power and maintain Russia’s industrial capacity.

“We build reactors not to produce waste but to produce energy,” Kaurov said. “Waste is a secondary problem. The main thing is the waste should be put out of reach of people, and we have many such places in Russia.”

With the first floating power plant under construction in St. Petersburg and destined for Pevek, Russia is entering a new era of building mobile nuclear reactors for civilian purposes.

In the past, mobile reactors have been used to power icebreakers, naval vessels and submarines. Small plutonium generators have been installed in interplanetary space probes to provide a long-term source of power.

In one top-secret project, the Soviet Union mounted a nuclear reactor on a railroad car to take electricity to remote regions in military emergencies, said officials who asked not to be identified. “Those people who truly consider the possibility of retaining their jobs will never talk about it,” one source said.

The floating nuclear power station, estimated to cost $260 million, will contain two nuclear reactors, storage space for radioactive waste and living quarters for a crew of up to 60 operators. Unlike other nuclear vessels, which use atomic energy for propulsion, it will have no engine and will have to be towed by another ship.

Its reactors, about the same size as a nuclear submarine’s, can produce 60 megawatts of electricity, enough to sustain a town of about 50,000 people, Frolov said. The station will require the construction of facilities on land to distribute its electricity and heat.

Designed to last for 40 years, it will be unplugged from the shore and towed back to its home port of St. Petersburg every 12 years for the removal of radioactive waste, refueling and repairs--a process lasting more than a year.

The engineers insist that there will be enough storage space on board to hold all of the reactors’ spent fuel rods and other nuclear refuse until the vessel returns for refueling. No radioactive waste will be dumped in the ocean, they say.

“For 12 years, it operates in a completely independent, autonomous mode,” said Sergei B. Kazakov, a spokesman for the Small Energetics Institute, a government agency that designed the station. “Once in 12 years, it will be towed to a shipyard, and they will unload these containers from the ship into special storage facilities on the mainland.”

The first nuclear barge is scheduled to begin operating in 2001 after it is towed thousands of miles from St. Petersburg through the White Sea Canal and across the Arctic Ocean to Pevek.

Chukotka Gov. Alexander Nazarov, whose province includes Pevek, is in favor of the floating station and puts his faith in scientists who say it will be safe. It will be better for the environment, he said, and cheaper than bringing in oil and coal--which can cost more to deliver than the fuel itself is worth.

“International experts have checked the blueprints and the design, and there should be no problem,” Nazarov said. “It’s a major improvement for the living conditions along the coastline.”

So far, Pevek is the only site for a floating nuclear station that the engineers are willing to identify. But because of the 12-year maintenance cycle, they say they expect to build at least seven stations and rotate the ships between their posts and the refueling center.

“We’re building a series. We’re not building just one,” Kazakov said. “Seven stations is what you need to ensure uninterrupted operation at six sites. It will be like a closed circle.”

*

Within Russia, Frolov said, the plants are ideal for bringing power to towns and cities along the Pacific coast. Outside Russia, he said, the biggest market would be Southeast Asia. Despite its current economic problems, the region’s rapid growth, need for energy and large coastal population make it an ideal candidate for floating stations, he said. Other potential customers might be found along the coast of the Indian Ocean, in North Africa or even among Arab countries as oil reserves decline in coming decades.

In many regions, the need for fresh water will make the station especially appealing, the engineers say. The floating reactors will produce enough power to run energy-guzzling desalination stations, and Russia plans to offer the rental of desalination vessels along with the nuclear stations.

Moreover, the floating station could make it possible for Russia to provide nuclear energy to politically unstable parts of the world without violating international restrictions on the dissemination of nuclear technology.

“The unique nature of the floating power plant is that it allows us an opportunity to deliver the final product to the customer without actually letting the customer have the know-how,” said Frolov, who is also the head of foreign trade for the Small Energetics Institute. “At any moment when we think the situation is getting unstable or we’re not sure about the future of the regime, we can take away the power plant immediately.”

The rental of floating nuclear plants could increase Russia’s political leverage in the developing world. Yet Russia could also run the risk of becoming embroiled in a local conflict if a nation or insurgent group sought to take over control of one of the stations.

And environmentalists point out that Russia’s ownership of the vessels means it would continue to own the plants’ nuclear waste too, and would have to find a way to dispose of it.

*

Designers of the floating station counter critics’ safety concerns by pointing to Russia’s experience of more than three decades in operating nuclear-powered icebreakers.

“The safety regulations and safety arrangements are the strictest that exist in the world so far,” Kazakov said. “We know the process like the back of our hand because all the icebreakers were built according to this scheme. In the past 32 years, the icebreakers have not had a single breakdown, and they have exactly the same system of operation.”

While the construction of mobile plants could bring energy to remote regions, the atomic ministry is moving ahead in European Russia with conventional reactors, which can produce 33 times as much energy as a floating station.

Reactors at Kalinin north of Moscow and Kursk in the south that were 70% completed at the time of the Chernobyl accident are now being finished. The Ministry of Atomic Energy also expects to overcome local opposition in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don and win approval soon to complete another Chernobyl-era reactor that was nearly finished when construction was frozen.

Russia reached agreement with China in late December to build a $3.5-billion nuclear plant near Shanghai and is negotiating with India to build a $2.5-billion power plant there. Iran will pay Russia $800 million to finish a reactor begun by Germany near the port of Bushehr--despite U.S. concern that Iran could use the technology to make nuclear arms. And Russia is talking with Cuba about financing completion of a reactor abandoned in mid-construction with the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Russia contends that world population growth and the pollution caused by the use of coal and oil make nuclear energy the only practical alternative for the world in the long run.

“The people of the future will look at the burning of fossil fuels as the Stone Age,” Kaurov said. “Humankind does not have any other option but to use nuclear power.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Floating Nuclear Power Plant

Russia is building the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, which is designed to provide power to the Arctic town of Pevek, about 700 miles west of Alaska. Designers plan to produce a series of such floating plants that could bring power to coastal regions throughout the world.

Technical features

* Number of reactors: 2

* Reactor power: 2 X 30 megawatts

* Capacity:

Electricity: Enough to serve a town of 50,000 people.

Heat: Enough hot-water heating for a town of 50,000*

* Or hot water could be used to power desalination plant, providing potable water for 50,000 people.

* Effective operating time: Up to 7,000 hrs./yr.

* Service life (years): Between overhauls: 12, Total: 40

* Staff / crew: 60

Floating Power Unit

1. Electrical engineering

2. Turbine generator

3. Reactor plant

4. Spent fuel storage

5. Auxiliary equipment

6. Living quarters