Why Russia Built a Floating Nuclear Power Plant

[@stan3277]

These vids are amazingly produced for such a small channel. Love from North Korea.

[@dhiren7787]

@@biIIybob858 that's not him silly

[@dlodeprojuicer]

Supreme Leader 🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️

[@danielroberts2417]

@@dhiren7787 shhhhh

[@antonfrommilan.746]

@@dhiren7787 r/whoosh

[@ysnsmth]

kim jong un pls release my family i miss them

[@СингонияКубическая]

Everyboby: oh no, global warming Russia: hmmm, opportunities

[@kennedytheretard975]

there is always opportunities even on a considerable disaster that can be global warming

[@budisoemantri2303]

Russia: finally a year around warm coast

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

it is not global warming, it is end of ice age

[@mrgopnik5964]

Technically there's a reason for Russia to even look forward to global warming, since their masses of useless land will finally become useful and even if they lose the coasts to the molten poles, it won't be too tragic for them considering their size

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

@@mrgopnik5964 there are no global warming, it is just end of ice age. Humanity's effect on global temperature is somewhere near zero

[@ajitsen6927]

4:13 The ice cover then & now is simply mind boggling.

[@abhik8344]

More of a disturbing image

[@mr.knowitall5019]

And boomers still say stuff like all this is not real.

[@bthemedia]

#1 reason: access to cold water 🌊 for cooling, as nuclear power ☢️ 🔋 plants require a LOT of water to cool the reactor. @4:00 This could also contribute to global warming 🌏 🥵 since it is happening in the arctic! 😳🤯

[@esftracksydeomg]

@@bthemedia lmao wtf is with all the emojis?

[@CraftyF0X]

@@bthemedia No, stop that crap right away. The amount of wasteheat is incredibly tiny compared to the amount of water in an ocean, not to mention its a very cold ocean. Many of the much higher power commercial reactors (around 1000MW) use river water as their third loop (condensation loop) and few metres away from the point where they realease the warm water it temperatures drops off to the background. If you consider the scales such reacors would literally mean warm drops in an huge cold ocean.

[@altGoolam]

Brilliant idea. A floating powerplant can be moved, sold pre-built at a fixed price, can be bridging power for places for short term, switched to hydrogen production if not being used etc. Most public anti-nuclear concern is based on outlier events, like Chernobyl ignoring worse practices in other industries, or the need for cheap electricity in the developing world. The Russians are geniuses.

[@spinyslasher6586]

Most public anti-nuclear concerns are caused by dumbasses who have no idea how a power plant works. Fossil fuel power plants have caused way more accidents and have taken way more lives than nuclear power plants.

[@vinny5638]

@@spinyslasher6586 well that also makes sense because the fossil fuel plants have been around for twice or three times as long as the nuclear ones. So any comparisons will need to be adjusted for time scale as well.

[@stevenschulte1475]

Most expensive electricity in the world. Ingenious.

[@cottontheeastercottontailr265]

Yup, I bet lots of communities are remote in Russia

[@spinyslasher6586]

@@vinny5638 even when adjusted for time scale the fatality rates for fossil fuel power plants far exceed nuclear power plants.

[@Itoyokofan]

What you've missed in the video: 1. There is a NPP in the village next to Pevek that will soon be closed, so Academic Lomonosov is first and foremost the replacement of that NPP. 2. Rosatom is actually the Northern Route operator, and Russian Arctic will eventually be pretty much "owned" by a single company. Rosatom will own a fleet of icebreakers, fleet of cargo ships, emergency vessels, ports, NPPs, even existing and future coal power plants, coal mines and company that produce mining equipment, not to mention new living quarters for the employees and their families. 3. Since Rosatom is in charge of the Arctic it will bring more nuclear technologies to the region, since unlike outsiders the company sees nuclear technologies as "green" emissionless technologies.

[@DD-pw3cu]

He mentions at 3:06 the Pevek NPP and that Academic Lomonosov will replace it

[@Itoyokofan]

@@DD-pw3cu He mentiones Chaunskaya coal power plant in Pevek, while NPP is in Bilibino, they both work in the same grid, and both shall be replaced, the only difference is that in Pevek there is an NPP now, and in Bilibino there shall be a new heat power plant.

[@KeithSithole-z8f]

So with so much highly sophisticated nuclear engineering, science, technology en knowledge can Russia fall short of ammunition, military equipment for such a small military operation in Ukraine

[@KeithSithole-z8f]

Rosatom does nuclear engineering, science, technology, mining en production en waste handling en reusing by itself, how can Russia fail to build or manufacture world most sophisticated weaponry, nuclear only dey been in ds for more than 8 decades if not a century

[@Yngvarr77]

@@KeithSithole-z8f It doesn't "fall short".

[@cazek445]

Russia: Largest country on earth. Russia: "We won't be building a powerplant on land."

[@cottontheeastercottontailr265]

Its hard to build on a good bunch of their land

[@spasticmovements]

No more Chernobyl never again hence

[@zolikoff]

They're building them on land too...

[@cazek445]

@@zolikoff its a joke

[@hamletgiragosian6147]

Russia's very size is precisely why it makes more sense to build seafaring power plants: If you can freely move the power source to where it's needed (oil and gas exploration, etc.), there's no need to build a vast network of long transmission lines, which can be prohibitively expensive (especially in remote, scantly developed areas), or to ask local authorities for permission to pass, which would inhibit the power plant's mobility. This is an elegant solution.

[@Darndiddlyarn]

Ice melts Russia: it's free real estate.

[@liverii6540]

УЭS

[@royk7712]

@@liverii6540 da

[@therealdave06]

If anyone's wondering about the scale perspective, the ship is 144m long and produces 70MW of electricity. So not that big, but come on, it's literally a boat.

[@sweatyatoms7719]

Can it power my ebike?

[@cianakril]

More like a barge actually. The two new nuclear icebreakers types, as well as most of the Russian submarines are more powerful.

[@user-bv7um1ds7y]

You really how small of a village it is right? 70mW is plenty

[@Злобныйприцеп]

@@sweatyatoms7719 Yes. Together with all your stinking city and homeless people lying on the street

[@КоржикКоржиков-м6щ]

Там установленно 2 реактора "РИТМ-200", оба реактора выдают мощность около 400МВт. На следующей строящемся плавучнй станции и новом ледоколе будут использоваться реактора "РИТМ-400", что позволяет удвоить мощность.

[@MistarZtv]

Russian: Its clean, safe and green energy guys. Also Russia: uses it to drill and mine one of the largest deep sea oil extraction ever.

[@legolegs87]

You cannot make plastic yoghurt can from uranuim, you need dat oil.

[@Petri_Pennala]

legolegs How about recycling that plastic

[@legolegs87]

@@Petri_Pennala I'm not against recycling, but it is not 100% efficient while every year you need more and more yoghurt cans. Also some plastic products like pipes are never recycled, you need hydrocarbons for those.

[@Invizive]

@@Petri_Pennala only some plastics can be reused, other important plastics have chemical composition that doesn't allow it

[@greenboi6640]

Yeah, they probably did not make that for the purpose of being environmentaly friendly.

[@MegaSaidos]

Brilliant use of it as a flexible movable energy generator

[@KGopidas]

Trust they design a smaller one that may be carried by road

[@killman369547]

@@KGopidas Those would be called SMR's (Small modular reactors) and they're definitely in the works.

[@AndreyYeltsov]

Greenpeace is really concerned by saving the nature rather than getting grants from "interested parties"? SRSLY?

[@CMDRSweeper]

They are looking out for their rivalling organization these days... BlackWar :D

[@Mico605]

I don't think their main purpose is to be "safer" if things go wrong with the plant. But rather to provide power to extremely remote areas of Russia when needed and to help those places develop faster. Long time ago I've seen another one of these Russian ship power plants that was powering one of their remote mining cities i think.

[@juliap.5375]

In video they not said two additional functions of this plant - it produce heat for city (in Russia centralized heat system) and desalination of water. This plant supply city with a) electricity b) heat c) drink water.

[@hamletgiragosian6147]

This is brilliant. It skirts the prohibitively expensive costs of power transmission infrastructure.

[@nawrex]

Say this every time but come onnnn look at this quality! unique and interesting each new video, keep up the quality and a great job as always. well done neo.

[@neoexplains]

Thanks!

[@appleslover]

@@neoexplains what happened to the intro ? It was majestic,out of this world..😢

[@neoexplains]

It will be back. I didn’t consider this a „mapped“ video therefore I didn’t use it

[@appleslover]

@@neoexplains pheww😥 Also ,i know many said it but your content is really good, keep it up 😉

[@anirudhvelamore6847]

@@neoexplains Please do more "mapped" videos! They're awesome!

[@julienckjm7430]

That's so objective, was it on other news channels we would be hearing something like "Russia is building a floating Chernobyl" or whatever nonsense they write...

[@Kuricang31]

Make it Canada, Sweden, or any Western countries instead of Russia and suddenly it's actually a good thing lol. What a hypocrite

[@RandyBoBandy.]

Those of you expressing extreme ignorance with your scare tactics, the vast majority of aircraft carriers and submarines in the US arsenal are “floating power plants”

[@protorhinocerator142]

True, but this one is dedicated to the peaceful use of nuclear power, so it must be evil. ...Those Russians...!

[@V3G4N01]

​@@protorhinocerator142Это напомнило мне как США создали первую в мире ядерную бомбу, а СССР первую в мире атомную элетростанцию. Затем США создали атомную подводвую лодку, а СССР атомный ледокол.

[@gjsoriano1]

Great innovation from Russia. Hopefully it will be maximized to propel growth in their Artic region. In the Philippines, we have floating coal plant which can be stationed to any major islands expected to have electricity shortages. Very economical given we are an archipelago.

[@bthemedia]

“Maximized to propel growth in arctic region” 😆😳😱 @4:00 This could also contribute to global warming 🌏 🥵 since it is happening in the arctic! 😳🤯

[@bthemedia]

Nuclear power plants require a lot of water 🌊 for cooling and output lots of hot water.

[@agailham8476]

In Indonesia too we use the floating coal plant from Turkish company. Hope next time we can build our own floating power plant, especially from nuclear energy. There are still many negative opinion from Indonesian for using nuclear and this Russian floating nuclear plant is one of the solutions.

[@pashapasovski5860]

@@bthemedia you obviously have no idea what you are talking about! Nuclear powerplant could contribute to Global Warming because it uses water cooling systems is like saying that pissing while swimming is doing the same! Greenhouse gases create CO2 that warms the planet, not dumping hot water!Japanese are dumping 500 billion gallons of radioactive water into the Ocean but nobody talks about it!

[@juch3]

@@agailham8476 a shame really, most people don't even know that nuclear power plants actually harness thermal energy, meaning the "smoke" coming out of those giant chimneys are actually water steam.

[@bostonandmaine7444]

The animation and graphic design are amazing!

[@vNYCblade]

A floating nuclear power plant is a great idea... and GENIUS solution for the Russian arctic regions... Good job Russia!

[@johannlingmarr8406]

In Western Chukotka, the old Soviet-built Bilibino nuclear power plant is being decommissioned, since its reactors are already at their limit. Academician Lomonosov replaced this nuclear power plant, for this purpose new power lines were built from Pevek to Bilibino and there is a reserve of capacity to supply the extraction of promising mineral deposits.

[@marcmckenzie5110]

One element of Russia's plans for these ship-based nuclear plants the world could learn from is to make nuclear facilities, to the greatest degree possible, modular, leverageable, and repeatable designs. All the greatest products be they automotive, consumer electronics, commercial networking, and so on, are engineered this way. Who point is that when flaws or problems are encountered, that learning can be designed both in new locations as well as retro-upgrades to existing locations. The idiocy of our nuclear plants in the U.S. and Europe is that each one is a custom design. This goes against everything the general field of engineering has learned in the past 50 years. Because the public doesn't understand this, fear-mongering is causing us to lose the potential of this energy source. Certainly, renewables should be front-stage, but eventually, we will realize the huge loss of lands to sprawling wind farms, solar farms, and the like (hey, I have solar on my house so I'm all for renewables but the grid loss and land use is currently ignored). Neither should we go crazy building nuclear plants, nor should we stop focused development of the technology. But alas, balance is perenially lost in public policy.

[@cianakril]

Land based nuclear power plants will always be custom designs, due to different soil composition and hundreds of other factors at each specific site. Russia was trying to do serial approach ever since 80es and it didn't worked out - every new plant has to be modified for a site specifics even if the reactors are the same.

[@marcmckenzie5110]

Gor Mor Thank you! I didn’t know that; it explains a lot, as design reuse seems unconsidered here.

[@protorhinocerator142]

Nuclear is far safer than every form of renewables. I would put nuclear tech in the forefront well ahead of renewables. The only time solar or wind make sense at all is on a small scale, in a remote area. And now because of Russia that remote area needs to be away from the sea. So maybe a small village in Africa, off-grid, and with plenty of sunshine? Yeah solar makes sense. Other than that, not so much. Wind almost never makes real sense. I agree that we need to pursue pre-fab nuclear reactors. They can be made cookie cutter in the factory and safety inspected before ever being deployed. Much of the local reactor (concrete footing, etc.) can be built with lower skilled construction workers. Then you drop the actual reactor into place and flip the switch. The new Gen 3+ reactors are already walk-away safe. Many of the Gen 4 reactors will be able to recycle nuclear waste and use it as fuel. It will burn through all the long-life waste and create short-life waste that's about 1000 times easier to manage. I'm also in favor of finding creative ways to shrink the minimum size of a useful modular reactor. Then nearly all ships and boats can use nuclear instead of petroleum. This would increase the advantage of mass production and lower the average cost. If you can make the reactor small enough that a 30 meter boat can run on one, the 30 meter boats will become very popular and the 29 meter boats will become very expensive. Maybe the Gen 4+ reactors would be modular enough to fit on a 20 meter boat, in which case the 19 meter boats will still need petroleum and become more expensive to own/operate.

[@sussyscylla3414]

@@protorhinocerator142on small boats the safety and cost would our way the benefits. With smallish vessels I think fossil fuels will always be king and ccs which is incredibly flawed can be used for that. However on big tankers, cruise ships, cargo vessels and the likes could definetly benefit from a nuclear makeover

[@eringanley8342]

I love the 3d modeling in this video, it looks incredible! Your videos look like they belong as a Netflix documentary, great work as always! Thanks for another entertaining video on a subject I didn't know about before

[@Vladimirputin11111]

Thanks for promoting us!!

[@appleslover]

Where is that majestic intro..?😢

[@Jernofenz]

ye even i miss it sed.

[@backpackerrr]

try to listen to sovietwave music, you will like it

[@FirefoxisredExplorerisblueGoog]

Clever. It'll contribute to Russia's grasp over the northern sea route and help keep China in check. No major power (China or US) would dare sinking one of these since the fallout would affect Norway, Canada, The US and Denmark. Likely bringing some kind of mix of the Five Eyes, The Nordic Council, Central Asian countries + Belarus, Japan and possible South-Korea and Taiwan into any conflict that arises. It's a safe way for Russia to strengthen its regional coastal authority while avoiding the high costs that would come with doing things via - nature wise - harsh land routes.

[@pierresihite8854]

Wow, this is very well thought out

[@eraserstp]

"No major power (China or US) would dare sinking one of these" - How do you even imagine that the US or China decided to sink any ship in Russian territorial waters? Russia is carefully monitoring its borders, and will strike back immediately.

[@lizwilliams6120]

You wouldn't have "fallout" from something like a ship if reactor went bad it would melt through the ship and go to the bottom of the ocean along with the sinking ship. Do you even know what fallout is?

[@Eradicator-jv9xr]

@@eraserstp well they won't dare to sink these power plants he means

[@Eradicator-jv9xr]

@@eraserstp and besides why would China sink one of these, since they are allies for a LONG TIME

[@ketchuplover3197]

Russian engineering never fails to amaze me

[@del1nk798]

@Walker who told you that? Cnn?

[@del1nk798]

@Walker lol are you actually serious right now, these are mostly military catastrophes, do you want me to make a list about us man made catastrophes? I'm not even russian but what you talking is a nonsense

[@del1nk798]

@Walker only ak? What about sputnik 1 or 1 man in the space? What about all russian inventions, tv, radio, transformers, helicopters, grane harvesters.. Idk why im wasting my time with such a brainwashed moron like you

[@aerodynamic1440]

@@del1nk798 Good Answer he don't have a clue about US disasters

[@olehigorovich474]

@@del1nk798 you are actually biased. Try actually using Russian "engineering" yourself, before writing this BS. They couldn't even make a car themselves. Those are made - worsened copies of the fiats and ripoffs of the american cars. What are you talking about? Even the well-known Kalashnikov was engineered with the help of German POVs after the WW2. Russian engineering is a joke.

[@cianakril]

5:26 Project 10510 icebreaker was laid down several weeks ago so it's is biggest icebreaker under construction right now. Not the previous one.

[@mxfpsrblx7291]

Neo the most informative and essential information distribution of our world we love you.

[@Allthingsmarinelife]

2020: you’ll find out soon

[@justpand]

2021: You've seen nothing yet

[@universeofopulence]

....I don't even want to know anymore..

[@bradz9413]

Hahaha

[@KingLouis420th]

RoguellVoid ☠️

[@tigsik3128]

This is actually pretty smart great job russia. Imagine the humanitarian benefits of this.

[@mvpsandeep]

Such as deep sea oil drilling? A nuclear disaster such a Chernobyl will not affect EU this time but the entire world. you would be amazed how fast ocean moves and who knows how much marine life will suffer, we haven't even explored the ocean yet.

[@tigsik3128]

@@mvpsandeep agree but what about folks in yemen in flooded areas in india or any where in the wolrd that needs power for emergency this can be used. So theres an argument between the bad effects outweighs the good effects.

[@riujithetechnician]

@Quinton Jewett for the right price and connections they will

[@ghassencsetwow]

@Quinton Jewett nice family name describes your personality very well

[@priersackh]

@@mvpsandeep Capitalism has already sucking your mind eh? This floating power plant will be helping many developing country, especially those who have a small amount of land rather than the water in its nation. Island/archipelago nation will be benefited much. Ofc safety is number 1, you can't just put it and not concerning it will leaks the enviroment and become an environmental disaster

[@boi8825]

Russia should really mass produce these things and sell overseas. I think its really profitable

[@bikedawg]

Great strategy! If in case of a SCRAM event, simply drive the boat to your nearest enemy and abandon ship.

[@cianakril]

It's a barge with no propulsion at all. You can't "drive" it anywhere on it's own.

[@MrVlad12340]

@@cianakril well, tow it there then. Same principle.

[@Awake-Free-CT]

I don't understand why they don't use some of the power to power the ship, rather than making it unable to move unless it is being towed. They are supposed to be so technologically advanced so they have built a big floating thing that can't even move on its own.

[@icemike1]

@@MrVlad12340 it's like a fight you have to remember it takes 2

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

@@Awake-Free-CT Building a nuclear power plant on a barge without diesel propulsion is not a matter of technological progress but practical decision.

[@argonauts56au1kera6]

Waiting for the new upload. I’m still in Quarantine so need more vids. You have really good quality videos, you need to produce this series.

[@benclark1096]

Very underrated channel with high video quality

[@sidhantjasrotia220]

I discovered this channel today,keep up the great work man

[@true_xander]

It is also possible in future, while having more of such floating plants, to rent some of them to remote countries who is in extreem need of their own sources of energy to develop a better life conditions (like most of the African countries and some of the south-east Asian).

[@killman369547]

Because it's easier to build a nuclear power station where you have all the resources needed and then move it to the location rather than truck all the materials and workers to the location and then build it there.

[@RIFLQ]

Opinion: So that Russia can sink the ship if the nuclear powerplant goes wrong..

[@GuderII]

Yep.

[@budisoemantri2303]

Big Brain

[@TheSonic10160]

@Light Morningstar Fucking lol no it can't. The fuel used in nuclear reactors is nowhere near enriched enough to make a chain reaction powerful enough to result in a nuclear explosion. There would be a lot of steam if the reactors melted down, but that's *if* they melted down. The reactors are the same design as those already in use on Russian icebreakers.

[@eyeofthetiger6002]

Yeah right, and contaminate the whole ocean in the process. Looks like they want a second Chernobyl.

[@TheSonic10160]

@@eyeofthetiger6002 Lol, Fukushima and the 50 years of atomic testing in the Pacific didn't contaminate the whole ocean. It didn't even raise radiation levels above the background of all the dissolved radioactive isotopes of Uranium and Potassium already in the water.

[@bradz9413]

Great to see Russia doing something positive. Wishing them success with their endeavours. 👍

[@ursa_margo]

Lol, and the rest of what we do is negative? :))) Boy are you filled with propaganda

[@Shrimpilla]

@@ursa_margo :)

[@bathell8099]

such a trash human comment

[@BrotherFox2]

@@ursa_margo they'll hate us all no matter what all we left is to fight.

[@luisromanlegionaire]

Best part about it if another country doesnt pay its power bill you can sail the nuclear plant away.

[@alexivanov2891]

I'd like to add some info about Academic Lomonosov. It is not only electric power plant but also heat production. ALL cities in Russia are built with multi-floor apartments and heated by external stations. None of buildings have any boilers or so.

[@Eukatae]

I have long fantasied about cheap factory built, modular MSR plants. Something that a country, town, factory, could buy and receive within a few weeks. Imagine what could be done with such a thing. Cheap, fast, clean power anywhere in the world. I can't think of anything else that can be done with currently available technology that could improve the lives of more people than that; while dramatically reducing carbon emissions.

[@fdjw88]

nuclear power plants are some of the safest structures in the world. Chernobyl happened because the USSR rushed the construction project which led to construction defects. and Fukashima incident was caused by a 9.0 earthquake, the largest earthquake ever to hit the mainland of Japan. since the first nuclear power plant construction in 1954, these two incidents were the only two incidents that ever happened. so far, nuclear power plants is the only electricity generation method that produce the most amount of energy and emit the least amount of CO2.

[@exelenttee]

About Japan: yes, and money for reconstruction was stolen. Purpose of reconstruction was to strengthen the plant to withstand such impact. So 2 nuclear incidents were due to corruption and stupidity of top management.

[@mickleblade]

Chernobyl was the result of an experiment gone wrong, it was ruin by poorly trained staff, there's something called xenon poisoning in nuclear physics, this means that if a reactor is turned off it can't be turned on for 3 days. Fukushima was shit positioning of a plant, in a place that's been hit by tsunami for the entire of recorded history, idiots.

[@uhh741]

3 mile island was a partial meltdown does that count?

[@adamkrueger1257]

Plenty of reactors melting down no one's talking about look up Boeing's meltdown in California

[@pelvis_assley]

Lmao you know shit about nuclear incidents

[@dlodeprojuicer]

Unlimited power but it has to be towed everywhere. Damn son. Great vid.

[@yangyu9990]

you'd think they would at least put some propulsion on it, you know, bring an enormous power plant an all

[@zolikoff]

I'd guess that putting a propulsion/navigation/control system on it just for the two trips it makes once every 12-15 years would be quite a waste. It's cheaper to just tow it. If you do expect to move it several times a year I might understand, but if it's largely just fixed in place most of its life then it's not worth it.

[@ignacioaguirrenoguez6218]

I agree with the guy above me, it would be useless to have a complicated steam turbine rusting. Plus, there would be no way this sails alone trough the artic, since it needs an icebreaker escort anyway

[@cianakril]

@@ignacioaguirrenoguez6218 yep. Add a propulsion and ice reinforced hull to sail through the Arctics and you essentially get a 40 years old Arktika I icebreaker that Russia is currently phasing out. It would be a mediocre icebreaker that still would be better in navigating ships than standing moored at a port, and at the same time several fold more expensive and overcomplicated as a power plant.

[@imrekalman9044]

- Nuclear aircraft carrier, Ford-class, 1400 MW thermal power, a weapon: "'murica, fak yeah!" - Nuclear ballistic submarine, Ohio-class, 310 MW thermal power, a weapon: "'Amazing! 😍" - Floating power plant, Lomonosov, 300 MW thermal power, not a weapon: "disaster incoming!" 😞

[@plusxz821]

Yeah america 1# *sips cola*

[@childe5059]

Ur blinded lol

[@TeddyKrimsony]

Submarines can handle tsunamis, ships can't

[@imrekalman9044]

@@TeddyKrimsony Yes, it's impossible for a barge that is manned 24/7 to loosen up the anchors to adjust for the increased sea level. 😒

[@Ms13unknown13]

@@TeddyKrimsony Aircraft carrier says hi

[@Warowo]

The production quality of these videos is just... amazing to say the least

[@MistarZtv]

I'm actually cool with the idea of nuclear energy and assuming everyone manages to follow protocols its less than destructive than using crude oil. But chile we all know that its being used to do harmful and destructive use to drill oil and "developing" those remote cities is just a fancy way of saying setting up a refinery.

[@miguelmalvina5200]

The problem is how we extract oil, if we can extract oil and use it without carbon emisions and shit.

[@guycross493]

Next project: Nuclear powered oil rigs Lmao

[@iplaygames8090]

@@guycross493 well YES this is the plant for theese oilrigs

[@ThatSpiffingChap]

@@miguelmalvina5200 If you plan on combusting the oil you literally can't use it without creating emissions.

[@cianakril]

Do you know that oil is not only fuel? Fuel is only small portion of all the applications. Your pants are probably made out of the oil fractions, so is the asphalt for the roads and all plastics items. Oil will be drilled until it runs dry and no amount of electric cars or solar plants will change this.

[@alfabravo80]

Just found this channel, keep up the great work homies

[@ATBatmanMALS31]

"Why Russia Built a Floating Nuclear Power Plant"- *Points at US CVN fleet*

[@Jaeboy]

you have a pretty good sound mixer/ engineer.

[@tedyuan2066]

Canada needs floating nuclear power plants for the far north like Nunavut. I think Canadian government needs to develop and build them in time. It also produces no GHG emission which is suitable to both local energy needs and climate action plan introduced by the Liberal Party of Canada.

[@eriklakeland3857]

Coming from a coal dominated US state that tried but abandoned nuclear power projects, Ontario, Canada's energy grid would be an absolute dream for us. Our air quality is ass.

[@killman369547]

@@eriklakeland3857 Then start organizing and maybe one day your dream of a clean power grid could be a reality. Many of those coal miners could be retrained for the nuclear industry. It takes many people with many different skills to keep an NPP operating at it's best. But first you gotta organize with people and demand nuclear power. If enough people demand it then it'll be impossible to ignore.

[@robertcapron8283]

This is great! I think this technology will make a difference for the benefit of the planet.

[@mnshp7548]

whats really good about the ships, if they have them just 30 km from the coast, thats the entire exclusion zone for chernobyl, the ship can then be sunk where the water will protect people from radiation so if something was to go wrong no land would be lost and only a small few people would be exposed

[@yegorgribenuke6853]

It would irradiate the ocean though. I guess it is the better of to evils.

[@johannlingmarr8406]

Pressurized water reactors are installed at Akademik Lomonosov, they are much safer than the Chernobyl-type reactors. These reactors also installed on the LASH carrier Sevmorput and icebreakers Taimyr and Vaygach, and have been sufficiently tested in operation for many years.

[@cianakril]

The plant need to be connected to the port infrastructure, there's no use of it 30 km offshore.

[@mnshp7548]

@@cianakril big wire, i realise voltage loss and all that but its almost "free" power

[@marcusbrajic7169]

Too all of you people mentioning a accident waiting to happen or "Floating Chernobyl", The arctic region/Siberia is a quiet region with No Tsunamies and are in a stable geographic region and those things. AND Remember, Russia has 36 reactors in operation by Rosatom(Росатом), 20 plants confirmed for "export"/building abroad, and they are leading developing new Nuclear technology. they are also building more new reactors and upgrading/expanding existing soviet-era plants which are outdated. (some 10 Chernobyl-like reactors are still operational in Russia(RBMK-1000 type)). Russia is investing Heavily in Nuclear Power, which I believe is a good choise for bot the furure and enviroment (not the arctic drilling thing tho). they also manage to take care of their Nuclear waste

[@randomname5585]

he just said in the video that there an incident of a radioactive leak in an ice-breaker ship. please keep your nuclear power inland and away from the oceans where it can spread to the whole fucking world.

[@bthemedia]

“They manage to take care of their nuclear waste”... how is this???

[@bthemedia]

#1 reason for Arctic: free access to cold water 🌊 for cooling, as nuclear power ☢️ 🔋 plants require a LOT of water to cool the reactor.

[@bthemedia]

@4:00 This could also contribute to global warming 🌏 🥵 since it is happening in the arctic! 😳🤯

[@marcusbrajic7169]

@@bthemedia they havent had any "leaks" from nuclear waste storage places. Sure we can imporove how we do it but atleast they are heading the right way. Its not perfect but its going forward

[@rabbiahmed7150]

Watching from Bangladesh 🇧🇩

[@rabbiahmed7150]

@Matija Erdeljic yes. But from village in Dhaka District.

[@rabbiahmed7150]

@Matija Erdeljic No District area.

[@BoilerBloodline]

I still cannot fathom how ridiculously solid an ice breaker ship has to be built in order to stand up to the constant beating it receives without ending up at the bottom of the sea.

[@nikitajelnikovs9920]

It doesn't work like that. A ice breaker has a shape that allows it to climb on the ice and break it with its own weight.

[@princekingmarbensumanga6195]

I really miss that awesome introduction...pls put it back

[@redpower6956]

Very interesting video! Keep doing these amazing videos. Thank you.

[@noahstuddert-kennedy1281]

Chernobyl sea expansion pack

[@joelp7665]

"Cities: Skylines - Arctic " EXPANSION

[@a_teonnai-ki8049]

Nope - Fukushima already did it

[@sidharthcs2110]

This on steroids = US carrier fleet

[@KingLouis420th]

sidharth cs nah we build our shit good

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

Why Chernobyl? Why not Fukushima, or Three Mile Island? What Russians have with Chernobyl? Chernobyl is Ukrainian!

[@trumanhw]

*I love this channel. Keep it up my friend. Always happy to see new videos from you.*

[@Jim54_]

Society’s rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity

[@killman369547]

This is one we can almost entirely blame on the baby boomers and the "hell no we won't glow" morons.

[@Itoyokofan]

Just recently Rosatom has confirmed that the company is ready to mass-produce the FNPPs and the order of 10 ships were confirmed. Together with land-based small NPPs that use the same reactors (RITM-200)

[@captaindak5119]

I hope my country uses this in the future. The lack of a cheap efficient source of electricity that isn't dependent on the weather is a hindrance to us. Unfortunately our politicians seem to be fine with the status quo.

[@andrewmagdaleno5417]

Loved the 3d animations, unique, clean and to the point. You should sell limited edition merch for the early subs to collect!

[@KeithSithole-z8f]

When we grew up we were taught lots of lies, ir That first person to land on the moon was an American, Armstrong with da appollo 11, ds very big lies, en most books have dz lies

[@KeithSithole-z8f]

First person to land on da moon was Russian, Yuri gargur

[@KeithSithole-z8f]

M not good with his last name spelling

[@KeithSithole-z8f]

Chinese en Russians talk less en do more

[@KeithSithole-z8f]

Americans en British preach too much en do less

[@thecookiecow]

Me after reading the title: Uh, becouse they can?

[@ursa_margo]

My thoughts exactly.

[@killman369547]

There is an element of that i assume. But the main reason is Russia has a lot of remote arctic villages that can't be easily accessed by land or air and these villages need more electricity. The problem is installing power lines to these villages would be costly, difficult and dangerous. So Russia is doing the comparatively easy thing by building these floating power plants that they can park right next to the village and hook them up.

[@sasidharm6702]

Ahh neo... I love your videos. They are so damn good man

[@truthhurts5564]

The answer for the title: So that if it explodes it won't affect Russia..

[@abhaykumarprasad4131]

Yes great leader

[@nottsoserious]

0:42 I know this is nitpicking, but reliable is the wrong word here. You should have used reliant for more clarity.

[@alpani6805]

When she whispers in your ear "Nuclear Powered Ice Breaker" 🥴

[@danthemansmail]

Actually a pretty damn good idea.

[@emrazum]

0:43 less RELIANT on ports, not reliable *

[@curtiscarpenter9881]

This is what we need in the UK and a land based system.

[@afwaller]

The US built their first floating (and sometimes sinking) Nuclear Power Plant in 1955 with the USS Nautilus. The US has around 80 floating nuclear power plants at my rough count, with 11 nuclear floating aircraft carriers and about 70 nuclear submersible vessels.

[@Press2GetTheCookie]

I’m so happy I found this channel

[@angrybutgoodbosniak9128]

The American government should man up and show its muscles to Russia and Putin instead of TARGETING me and ISIOLATING me when i am just a poor weak and unarmed Bosniak who was in a WAR at the age of 8. Btw it is NOT my fault that i am ugly to most and that many girls really hurt my feelings by calling me ugly and playing with me..........anger is here!!!!!!!

[@StefanMX]

Better than thousands of uggly wind turbines everywhere.

[@RankinMsP]

Yeah. Because when an ugly wind turbine breaks down, we don't have to worry about death and disease

[@sekacek-sl3jo]

@@RankinMsP nuclear power plants are not as dangerous as they were in the past, plus they are way more effective than solar panels and wind turbines who for their expenses generate little to no power on their own, while also being quite eco-friendly

[@RankinMsP]

@@sekacek-sl3jo until.something goes wrong and entire populations, land Mass and waters are devastated. I appreciate you taking time to explain it to me but Japan showed that anymore can get it wrong, no matter how thorough we think they are.

[@RankinMsP]

@Pete is never wrong this means a lot from someone who is never wrong. 😁

[@cooley987]

I believe there is a market for it. I mean, earthquake cant touch it, the danger from storm can be highly mitigated. I like it. As long as all safety precautions and practices are being followed of course.

[@KingLouis420th]

We shall see

[@shubham-pawar]

Humanity's everlasting need for energy and it's over dependency on fossil fuels for it's generation will only be fulfilled by using nuclear (fission at present) energy. Ignoring nuclear power will only make humanity's doom early.

[@baltofarlander2618]

Finally, someone who actually gets it.

[@906999]

Sir, lovely video, but as a sailolr I need to make you aware of a major mistake. around 2.45 you say the ship needs to be towed because it doesn't have it's own propulsion. Which makes this a barge. Thank you, kind regards, Loewie

[@DeconvertedMan]

If it starts to have a melt down, you just move it away.. hmm. Neat!

[@cianakril]

That's the naval type reactors. They don't melt down. They have not enough energy and nuclear fuel enrichment for this kind of reaction.

[@asongtiadepelong3892]

Finally some content please don't starve us for long

[@siemdecleyn3198]

The whole world: "let's move from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear power" Russia: "let's build a nuclear plant to drill for more oil and gas in the Arctic"

[@igorlukyan206]

Huh? What’s that? It sounds like nobody’s moving from fossil fuels!

[@QuentinWatt]

Igor Lukyan exactly

[@skyfish8781]

I love/hate the logic of of look the ice caps are melting, fantastic let's drill for more fossil fuels.

[@ensteffo]

+Siem De Cleyn The western world USA and its vassals are moving along with big oil projects and pumping billions of dollars in to the industry to save it from the low oil price and financial downturn. It appears you have been misinformed by in the media. Also western complaints about Chinese pollution is in reality a complete sham as much of it is from production moved from the west to China by western oligarchs to cut cost then shipped back to the west for consumption. This means this pollution is western despite it being outsourced to China or other low cost nations.

[@Sir1us1]

The warmer the planet, the more warmwater ports Russia has. Should we go back to the old way of killing people to obtain them? Oh wait, we did!

[@drastically143]

Wow, you didn't butchered the ships name, nice!

[@Biggest_Cat_There_Ever_Was]

Norway: *measures increased radioactivity* Russia: o.0

[@Invizive]

It's from a failed nuclear test, not from these plants

[@vasiovasio]

They build it because they Can!

[@berZerkHD]

When will someone make a flying power plant is what I'm wondering. Maybe North Korea will find a way

[@gus65991]

kim will probably try

[@kukus512]

Aren't nuclear warheads just basically nuclear reactors wth no cooling? And some dynamite? (Yes, i know that they don't work like this, this is supposed to be a joke)

[@Theowenking]

The United States Air Force already made a flying nuclear reactor. It was called Convair NB-36H.

[@erikbeuk900]

the USA already tried

[@lycossurfer8851]

A little tricky with the power cables but anything is possible (giant extension cord maybe????)

[@brianawilk285]

Building a nuclear power plant on a boat is a good idea. One of the reasons why there's a meltdown is the pumps fail that pump in fresh water. Pretty easy to get water in a boat that sits on top of water.

[@manjunathkori8578]

Make an video on Indian prime minister Narendra Modi 🚩

[@philburch1970]

A better question is: Why NOT build floating nuclear powerplants? 80% of humanity lives within 100km of a coastline, and this can be moved away from population areas for both refueling and in the event of a malfunction. This is an idea that needs to be franchised out for use in places with growing economies around Africa, North and South America, and other continents.

[@loganrogers9157]

"Why not on land?" Russia "we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing, or two"

[@stepankarmanov51]

Потому что на Камчатке землетрясения, на корабле безопаснее и дешевле.

[@caav56]

@@stepankarmanov51 И, в среднем по больнице, больше мобильность.

[@redneckpyromania6965]

The polar caps are melting let's take advantage of it and get even more oil and gas to make sure those mods melt all the way great idea!

[@kurtjohansson1265]

New nuclear power can fix global warming. I'm just saying

[@tec4303]

Humans: We need to stop burning fossil fuels! Governments: Yea, but we want that money from the lobbyists. Russia: Let's subsidise the extraction of fossil fuels. Sounds like a great idea.

[@Mocsk]

Russia: quick, sell all that fossil stuff before it's worth nothing

[@Mocsk]

@Hernando Malinche that's… what? That's not how it works.

[@iplaygames8090]

@@Mocsk well it does change the market price if the market overflows

[@Travelaround82]

nice video thankx for showing

[@MortyMortyMorty]

Russia: We build nuclear zero emission power plants that can swim. Also Russia: And we use them to mine oil. 💀💀💀

[@nakedonthebeach]

In the short period of being online maybe it could be zero emission. The production of the nuclear fuel surely isn't. Neither is the safeguarding of nuclear waste for the next few million years.

[@deptusmechanikus7362]

because oil mining industry pretty much owns the government. That's how things are in capitalist russia: you break a window on a cop car and go to jail for two years, but when a giant oil company spills over 27000 tonns of diesel all over Siberian forests and rivers because *they couldn't be fucking bothered to perform some basic fucking maintainence on their storage units once SINCE THE FALL OF THE UNION,* and all it's owner gets is a slap on the wrist and an order to clean it up from their own pocket. No fine, no jail sentence, no resignation. Furthermore, who gets most investments? Oil companies. Who gets tax returns and cheap loans? Oil companies. Who constantly asks russian government for more tax cuts and subsides?! Motherfracking oil companies!! Last year government cranked up retirement age by five years because they couldn't find 2 billion roubles for social security checks. Care to guess how much subsidies oil industry fucking got in the same year? YES, THESE TWO BILLION FUCKING ROUBLES. And a year before that they raised sales tax again because they couldn't cover budget deficit any other way. Budget THAT HAD FUCKING SUBSIDIES FOR FUCKING OIL INDUSTRY IN IT!!!

[@cianakril]

@@nakedonthebeach safeguarding the nuclear "waste" for few millions years? Seriously? Haven't you heard of fast breaders and the full nuclear cycle? Russia uses the "waste" as a fuel in the other reactors, it needs not to safeguard anything for few millions years.

[@MrUnicorn15]

@@RagingDong Not really. Production always costs something but this effect is offset by the savings of renewable energy quite quickly depending on the source. What he pointed out is the production of fuel, something wind or solar energy are not depending on and is a constant burden.

[@baltofarlander2618]

@@deptusmechanikus7362 Russia is not capitalis, it is oligarchy.

[@Daedhart]

One word...pirates. Military ships with nuclear plants are one thing; they can defend themselves. These things would need large military convoys both during transport and long after the thing has docked. Just imagine the headline: "Pirates steal nuclear power plant"

[@raininginside]

Sounds like a cool plot for a movie

[@Daedhart]

@@raininginside Heheh, you arent wrong.

[@sodinc]

It will be interesting to find a pirate in arctic ocean, they usually don`t have icebrakers and advanced AA systems

[@redrumtm3435]

You'd think they'd get within 200 miles of it without the Russian military spotting them?

[@antlerking69]

And do what with it? Power Mogadishu

[@r3drumg33k3]

"What if a tsunami comes" well the plant is probably f*cked either way, and might actually have a chance to ride it out being on the ship, also flooding is not a concern.

[@faustin289]

Tsunamis affect ships that are near the shore, that's where the wave rises high. For those ships far out offshore, it's no threat at all.

[@r3drumg33k3]

@@faustin289It depends how deep the water is under it, but true, I would hope they would end up half a mile off shore at the least.

[@cianakril]

There is no and can't be a tsunami in the Arctic ocean.

[@leonardpearlman4017]

Is this Tsunami territory?

[@AndrewPolich]

Portable power plants? Sweet solution to providing immediate power. However, getting the electricity to the end user is the issue. Power lines need to carry the electricity and these can be disabled by trees falling, heavy winds, and even animals!

[@sciaditya1]

it is yamal with a y . not jamal . jamal is an arabic male name.

[@burung81]

i think it will safer to have nuclear plant on sea than land. Sea with its immerse water are ultimate heat sink. When nuclear reactor on land, the issue with land base is to get enough water to cool it. So long the reactor heat can be sinked, no explosion can happen. Correct me if you think iam wrong.

[@dansmith9770]

Thats chernoblyn floating on sea waiting to go off hahahaha

[@aatifrehman4150]

Wat about ur aircraft carriers ? Wat r they

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

What Russians have with Chernobyl? Chernobyl is Ukrainian!

[@nikitajelnikovs9920]

Nuclear energy is one of the safest in the world. Chernoblyn went of because the soviets rushed the building process.

[@nts821]

Why doesn't Greenpeace ever protest against US nuclear carriers?