Russia has a nuke ice breaker event

[ensho]

A nuclear leak on a Russian icebreaker off the coast of western Siberia forced the vessel to head back to port, Russia's nuclear fleet, Rosatomflot, said today. The "insignificant increase in activity" in the Taimyr atomic icebreaker was noticed as the vessel was leaving the Yenisei Gulf region of the Kara Sea, Rosatomflot said in a statement. The Kara Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean, lies east of the Barents Sea. The Taimyr is now returning to its port in the northwestern city of Murmansk, it added. "If the situation deteriorates, the reactor system will be shut down, and the cooling process will begin," Rosatomflot said. The statement did not say how many people were on board the vessel, adding only that according to the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, the event could be registered as "a zero," or bearing no safety significance.
--------------------

I've heard of nuke subs, didn't know there was nuke ice breakers. learn something new every day

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php

[One_Life_To_Give]

1. Reportedly the Icebreakers are in disrepair

Their fleet of NucIcebreakers has been falling into disrepair since the fall of the Soviet Union. Doesn't get the same priority as the Subs I guess. Been reading that an accident was just waiting to happen for some years now. As they are apparently trying to use them again it makes the short term likelihood of an accident that much higher.

[ensho]

2. thanks for this info - in the blink of an eye a new nuke disaster

could happen

[madokie]

3. In the blink of an eye and don't ever forget that

closest nuke plant to me is in Arkansas about 200 miles away and its way too close for comfort for me.

rec'd

[Shagbark Hickory]

4. I wonder what they're going to say (or not say) about this on RT. nt

[hobbit709]

5. There are at least 3 nuclear submarines that sunk for whatever reasons.

At least that's the 3 we know about. The Thresher, the Scorpion and the Kursk

[RKP5637]

6. Interesting - List of sunken nuclear submarines

Eight nuclear submarines have sunk as a consequence of either accident or extensive damage: two from the United States Navy, four from the Soviet Navy, and two from the Russian Navy. Only three were lost with all hands: two from the United States Navy and one from the Russian Navy. All sank as a result of accident with the exception of K-27, which was scuttled in the Kara Sea when repair was deemed impossible and decommissioning too expensive. All of the Soviet/Russian submarines belonged to the Northern Fleet. Although the Soviet submarine K-129 (Golf II) carried nuclear ballistic missiles when it sank, it was a diesel-electric submarine and is not in the list below.
List of sunken nuclear submarines located in North Atlantic.

Thresher
Scorpion
K-8
K-219
K-278
Atlantic

Of the 8 sinkings, 2 were due to fires, 2 were due to explosions of weapons systems, 1 was due to flooding, 1 was weather-related, and 1 was sunk intentionally due to a damaged nuclear reactor. In 1 case, the cause of sinking is unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines

[L0oniX]

7. There are nuke merchant ships too. Tankers are being planned too.

http://www.nssavannah.net/

http://articles.maritimepropulsion.com/article/Nuclear-Power-for-Tanker-Propulsion-e28093-A-Work-in-Progress-4303.aspx

[ensho]

8. jeez - moving disasters

hope they rethink bldg. them

[eppur_se_muova]

11. Four ships -- USA, Russia, Germany, Japan -- all but one retired or converted.

Only the icebreakers, which fulfill a unique role with unique demands, continue in service. (The Sevmorput, although a cargo ship, has icebreaking capabilities.) In other applications, nukes just don't make economic sense, even minimizing the safety concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_ships
I guess global warming will end the careers of the icebreakers, so in one sense at least, fossil fuels will trump nuclear.

[Diclotican]

9. ensho

ensho

The Russians have had nuclear powered ice breakes since the late 1970s, it was meant as a repleasment for the often old and oil turtsty ice breakers of the 1960s... But have allways been plagued by construction faults, and nuclear power reactors who often scramble, and with crews who are less than stellar in their performance... The idea is great, build a nuclear powered ice breaker who are just in need on fuel a decade or more between. But when your government are using it to just se how smart your pepole are, the idea is not that great.. The ice breakers have allways been used more as a status symbol, first for the soviet union, in less favour of the russians, as a nuclear powered ice breaker is not excatly in-expensive.. Rather expensive..

But, good they got the ship in, and that it was comented as a "non-coment". It tells at least that the crew did the right ting, rather than send the ship out in sea, and then a nuclear accident.. Better safe than sorry if you ask me...


Diclotican

[Renew Deal]

10. I was thinking the same thing.

They do have a lot of remote sea to cover. :shrug: