,
10 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD about visit to the floating nuclear power plant for those who missed it yesterday (or don't want to enter email to read for free). In short, cost & safety issues matter less than geopolitics in Russia's “nuclearification” of the warming Arctic 1/10 telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/0…
Academic Lomonosov is basically a huge nuclear barge that'll be towed 3000 miles to replace nuclear plant near the gold-mining town of Pevek. Why didn't Rosatom just build another plant onshore or retrofit an icebreaker (& save $)? For one that wouldn't get as much publicity 2/10 
Its 2 uranium-fueled reactors can power a city of 100,000. Rosatom wouldn't show us the reactors, but this is the control room. Rostekhnadzor complained it wasn't allowed to check on construction regularly—then gave the plant an operating license anyway. 3/10
It's been called a “nuclear Titanic,” & Rosatom's promises it will be “invincible” & tested “at 110%” are hardly relieving. Several Russian nuclear subs have sunk & one caught fire last month. The floating plant caught fire in 2017—just “smokiness” its director told me 🤔 4/10
Although activists worry about a tsunami, ice is a bigger problem in the Arctic. @greenpeaceru also highlighted terror threat by sailing up to the floating nuclear power plant in 2017. But it will be docked in a protective pier in a bay & watched by national guard troops. 5/10
@greenpeaceru “Chernobyl on ice" is figurative; a blast that size isn't really possible. Water, not flammable graphite, slows neutrons down for fission in the floating plant's twin KLT-40S reactors (similar to those on 3/5 Russian icebreakers). But meltdown could cause local contamination 6/10
@greenpeaceru The real danger, @BarentsNews & @Bellona_no say, is when the plant is towed back to Murmansk for refueling in 12yrs. It will enter the Barents Sea, source of cod for British fish & chips, carrying spent nuclear fuel in storage containers, a “wild” idea in terms of safety. 7/10
@greenpeaceru @BarentsNews @Bellona_no Rosatom says it has agreement to consider building a floating plant in Sudan & interest from S America & Asia (where risk of tsunamis & terrorists is higher). But it cost $430m+ & isn't plug-&-play given the onshore infrastructure needed. Tow across Atlantic for refueling!? 8/10
@greenpeaceru @BarentsNews @Bellona_no So there probably won't be many floating power plants in Africa or Asia. But the Northern Sea Route to China is warming & now that Rosatom's in charge of infrastructure for it, nuclear power will get priority. The 62 reactors in the Arctic now are expected to double by 2035. 9/10
@greenpeaceru @BarentsNews @Bellona_no For N. Sea Route to make sense, ships must be able to move fast, which is why Russia plans 9 nuclear icebreakers by 2035. It must be defended, hence plans for nuclear subs, warships, seafloor reactors (!) & underwater drone. Arctic will have the most nuclear waters on earth 10/10
