Russia now has a floating nuclear power plant

Floating chernobyl 2.0

How does it work then? What would happen to water if it melts?

Water is already melted

Sinking into the frozen Arctic sea will prevent it from melting down, and at the bottom the radiation won't kill anyone but crabs

In case you haven't noticed Russia just detonated a weapons depot irradiating Eastern Europe AGAIN

USA has 10.

Attached: coolstoryivan.jpg (1024x678, 388K)

The Brits already radiated us years ago

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_tests_in_Australia

is that why the spiders are so big over there

Sounds based and like a great thing, good job Russia.

Japan has nuclear catastrophe near the ocean
Russia has nuclear catastrophe in the ocean

The rainforest is nearly wiped out an the ozone is melting away, guess it's time to finish off the oceans.

Doesn't even have a ramp. Sad. Many such cases.

It's an above water submarine?

This poster is delusional

OH NO 16 TIMES BACKGROUND RADIATION???
THAT.....
That's as much as a CT scan gives you...
And you would have to stay in the area for a year to get = to a CT scan...

Fuck off with your fear mongering.

Russia will get a massive GDP increase from Global Warming, since Siberian permafrost will become farmable land
This is why Russia never gives a shit about Global Warming and is building 50% of all Nuclear Reactors currently under construction

I'm told it's the equivalent of a chest x ray

I can imagine how safe it would be to sit inside a cat scan machine for weeks.

what could go wrong

>american reading comprehension

You dumb animal he meant the power plant

>now
this isn't new
youtube.com/watch?v=BRRy6t5K3R4

Attached: sam_crimmin_np_2015_v3-10.jpg (1200x600, 68K)

Wow! What innovation! America has a fleet of those and you can launch and land aircraft on them.

RBMK: the Chad reactor

>can be refueled continuously without shutting down and wasting valuable time
>can run on un and low-enriched uranium
>inexpensive and quick to build
>more powerful than most other reactors
>looks cool in an industrial chic kind of way, bold red and white chimney color scheme
>only partial containment unlike reactors for western sissies, limited safety features that can be disabled by the operator
>moderated by penetrating metal rods, not just water
>has a pretty good safety record too despite Western propaganda, over 100 built in the USSR over the decades with few accidents

Attached: C1FF946F-5841-46CE-9A6A-5624C4E20D8D.jpg (1920x997, 337K)

>limited safety features that can be disabled by the operator

That sounds like a negative not a positive

>Russia now has a floating nuclear power plant
So?
>By 1990, there were more nuclear reactors powering ships (mostly military) than there were generating electric power in commercial power plants worldwide
>Over 140 ships are powered by more than 180 small nuclear reactors and more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operation has been accumulated
>they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers
How is this even news? This thing just sitting there at anchor is way safer than a nuclear sub or icebreaker.
Fucking sensational 'muh Russia' jew news.

Attached: carrier.jpg (1200x801, 165K)

16x background radiation is 38.5 mSv
A CT scan gives off 7mSv

Normal background radiation is 2.4 7mSv

Technically the dude is way wrong. It's equivalent to have 5 CT scans on you at all times. I doubt that's safe but i'll take the Russian Ministry of Defenses word for it.

You fucking retarded mutt aircraft carriers cannot power cities

A CT scan gives off about 32 microsieverts, which is about what 16 times background radiation will give you over an entire year of exposure.
Or you know, like a year in Brazil because that is about the background radiation in Brazil.

How are you supposed to do innovative experiments if you’re constantly being NERFd by a faggy computer safety system? Where’s your sense of adventure

Attached: 449A48B9-33E7-48C9-86BE-77BCAB92A796.jpg (1200x800, 78K)

It's news because it's designed to be a power station, rather than just a nuclear powered ship. Pretty solid idea for powering remote islands and such.

Why are people comparing a 1960's soviet nuclear reactor to any kind of modern reactor?
Fuck off.

You are in prison, you get fucked in the ass by everybody.
You decide to suck a powerful person's dick for protection.
You are a cocksucker that has to give some sweet ass to your master now.
This is serbia.

Pretty cool. Russiabros always were great at nuclear

Poor crabs

us wanted to build something similar, but failed, couldnt. us will be 3rd world country in one generation. buy buy usa

shut the fuck up, you butthurt turdroach abortion

I'm very pro nuclear power, but this is not going to end well!

>Memeflag didn't get my popculture reference

Attached: Delusional.png (499x367, 161K)

Could be true. But were we really that bad during our hegemony? Feels like we did our best and got taken over by jews at the end. Pls no bully once we third world

If the US didn't do something it's probably because it was to dangerous.
If something this lethal is to dangerous for the people who put a flag on the moon then putting it in the hands of Russians is just asking for a global disaster.

You can easily power an average city with 200MW. Not a major urban environment but definitely a either a small city of 50k or an immediate downtown infrastructure .

If you read about the power plant ship it's literally a pair of reactors used in the icebreakers, plopped on a floating platform and towed around by smaller ships. The one in the news story is being used to provide power to a gold mining operation, it only has two 70MW reactors.

This guy gets it

you're talking to a streetshitter memeflag, how in the fuck is that subhuman going to "bully" america?
by emigrating like his subhuman compatriots?

What? How is water going to melt the power plant?

Hopefully it does so next to Israeli coast

Time to expand

Attached: AMERICA EXPANDED.png (1484x751, 429K)

I meant serbia as a whole, sucking russian dirty cock, didnt even read your comment.

They are going to end up poisioning the water.
Why do the people that run stuff always have to ruin everything?

>Pretty solid idea for powering remote islands and such.
Yeah I agree. I was more leaning towards the safety argument. Once the thing is anchored it should be way safer "a nuclear Titanic" that they say in the article. I'm just fucking sick of idiots sensationalizing everything. A dog could bite someone tomorrow and the headline would read "Cojo may have had Puppies!"

based autist

Ours serve Israel, while Russia's is being used for economic development.

Yeah people get retarded about nuclear power. It's the greenest power source we have, but nobody wants it.

>yet people like you will tell me 100 hiroshima sized bombs would wipe out the planet.

Nuclear winter isn't caused by the energy released from the bombs themselves. It is caused by the largest cities on Earth burning for days on end. 200 large burning cities will be an ELE.

Your posts are very low energy

Attached: Milkshake.jpg (479x745, 443K)

The point is that aircraft carriers are not specifically designed for powering a city.if they divert the power then thats another thing.

pic related

>can't even power itself along the seaways
>needs tugs

fail.....

also

>no ramp

looks shitty
pass

For fucks sake...The guy meant nuclear power plant "melts"(short for meltdown).water gets polluted with radioactive waste.
No wonder you lost the war against emus

kek, best read in a while

>water gets polluted with radioactive waste
Then don't put the melted water in the reactor

Hope it explodes and all of you sea fuckers get irradiated

Attached: 1557828559073.png (852x1256, 55K)

Ok.for a while there i really thought you were a dumbfuck.but good bait .you got me man you got me

Good, I was tired of having usable water.

3,6 Chernoraft

Not great, not terrible.

Attached: 1523389772073.jpg (437x458, 73K)

There's graphite on your face now

Attached: kek.jpg (400x392, 50K)

It's so red.

>and a third of the sea will turn blood red
Can't wait till they fuck up

Should we trust russians with nuclear energy at all?

Couldn't they float it over to another nation's coast and threaten to blow it up?

of course

Attached: chernobyl.jpg (1400x788, 2.5M)

Why would the country with the largest nuclear arsenal need to do something like that?

At least they got rid of the ramp this time.

As in a nuclear powered ship?
So did Russia then:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov-class_battlecruiser

As opposed to sucking US / NATO / UK cock?
meme fags such as you aren't even worthy of replies

How the fuck nuclear reactors gonna help them push global warming? If they were interested in warmer climates they would build coal plants or just straight up CO2 factories...