Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Denuclearization won't save North Korea, because US always want war:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

Here is a nice juicy target for someone to blow the SNOT out of:

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia -- A floating nuclear power plant built in Russia has embarked on its first sea voyage so its reactors can be loaded with fuel. The floating plant, the Akademik Lomonosov, was towed on Saturday out of the St. Petersburg shipyard where it was constructed. It is to be pulled through the Baltic Sea and around the northern tip of Norway to Murmansk in northwest Russia, where the nuclear reactors are to be fueled.
The Lomonosov is to be put into service in 2019 in the Arctic off the coast of Chukotka in the far east, providing power for a port town and for oil rigs.
The project has been widely criticized by environmentalists. Greenpeace has dubbed it a "floating Chernobyl."

The Akademik Lomonosov leaves St. Petersburg on April 28, 2018.
NICOLAI GONTAR/GREENPEACE VIA REUTERS


After a period of time in Murmansk, the power plant will be towed to a small Arctic town called Pevek, according to German broadcaster Deutsche Welle. The floating nuclear power plant, called the Akademik Lomonosov, doesn't have any of its own propulsion hardware, so being slowly towed to its destination is a necessity. The company that built the plant, state-owned Rosatom Corporation, said in a press release that the second stage of the journey, from Murmansk to Pevek, will commence in 2019, with fuel and crew aboard the boat/power plant.

Once the plant reaches Pevek, it will be used to power the 100,000-person town, a desalination plant, and oil rigs. Rosatom says that the Lomonosov is intended to replace the region's Bilibino nuclear power plant, which provides 48MW of nuclear power and was built in 1974, as well as the Chaunskaya Thermal Power Plant, which is now 70 years old. Bilibino was once the northern-most nuclear power plant in the world, but after the Lomonosov is in operation, it will inherit that title.
The project has not been without the kinds of delays that nuclear projects seem to inevitably face: in 2015, the Norway-based website Barents Observer wrote that the Lomonsov would be put into service by October 2016.

FURTHER READING
Aboard the NS Savannah, America’s first (and last) nuclear merchant ship
Meanwhile, critics are concerned that a floating nuclear power plant is a situation ripe for disaster if the boat encounters extreme weather. In a statement, Greenpeace nuclear expert Jan Haverkamp cited concerns about the Lomonsov's flat-bottomed hull and its lack of self-propulsion despite the fact that it is intended to be anchored in relatively shallow water.

Rosatom's press release states that "All necessary construction works to create on-shore infrastructure are underway in Pevek. The pier, hydraulic engineering structures, and other buildings, crucial for the mooring of FPU [floating power unit] and operation of a FNPP [floating nuclear power plant] will be ready to use upon Akademik Lomonosov arrival."
A likely reason why Russia would want a floating power plant? The region in which it will be stationed is quite remote, and moving machinery out by land is far more expensive than moving it by sea. Deutsche Welle points out that climate change has made it easier for Russia to use northern sea routes for transportation between the country's west and east regions.
Correction: This story originally said that the Lomonsov was the world's first floating nuclear power plant but in fact the US military used a floating nuclear power plant on the Sturgis in Panama between 1968 and 1975.

ORIGINAL: KungPao

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Denuclearization won't save North Korea, because US always want war:

Denuclearization may not save NK, but a cold war v2.0 between China and USA will. Just think about Tito, Ceauºescu and Saddam during cold war.

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

FlyForLenin:
You ask a good question: I am thinking that since it would be an airborne contaminant as well as a seaborne one, it would be worse. And many storm fronts circulate air (particularly during winter) from the poles...
But you may be right... and I had not realized that there have been all that many nuclear submarines lost: I know the Mike or Papa was lost, and I think an American nuc as well. Were there others?

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

FlyForLenin:
You ask a good question: I am thinking that since it would be an airborne contaminant as well as a seaborne one, it would be worse. And many storm fronts circulate air (particularly during winter) from the poles...
But you may be right... and I had not realized that there have been all that many nuclear submarines lost: I know the Mike or Papa was lost, and I think an American nuc as well. Were there others?

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin

So actually, you may be right, as not only is the reactor sitting in shallow waters, but also, storms may carry radiation elsewhere, so the environmental damage would be disastrous.

So actually, you may be right, as not only is the reactor sitting in shallow waters, but also, storms may carry radiation elsewhere, so the environmental damage would be disastrous.

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

US confirms laser by China

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -s-pilots/

"Marine Corps Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, commander of the U.S. Africa Command, warned in congressional testimony in March that China is seeking to expand and possibly take over the strategic port in Djibouti, which owes Beijing an estimated $1.2 billion in construction debt."