Talk:Nuclear-powered icebreaker

Lenin accident

The Lenin icebreaker ship was put out of operation circa 1973, when it suffered a reactor meltdown. For some time the CIA believed the ship actually sunk, which was not the case, although it was never operational again, I heard. [unsigned]

Russia only

So is Russia the only country to operate nuclear ice breakers? TastyCakes (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

-- Yes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.92.135.59 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

When reading this statement;

A nuclear-powered icebreaker is a nuclear-powered ship, purpose-built for use in waters covered with ice. While nuclear-powered icebreakers have been considered or planned by other countries, the only country that has built and operated them as of 2022 is Russia. 

I came to the same conclusion, independent from talk, that Nuclear Powered Ice Breakers are Russian only devices. The entry then should read;

A nuclear-powered icebreaker is a nuclear-powered ship, purpose-built for use in waters covered with ice. Russia is the only country that currently builds and operates Nuclear Powered icebreakers. 

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Canada has previously considered a nuclear-powered icebreaker (e.g. [1]) and there are reports of China planning a nuclear-powered icebreaker (e.g. [2]). Thus "other countries" must be mentioned. I don't see a problem with the old lead and have reverted your changes. However, the article should be expanded to cover other countries. Tupsumato (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I propose the following which I think might address your concern and my concern as well. The following would mention countries considering building NPI; at the same time it emphasizes implementation over consideration. It also addresses the difference between Russia and the Soviet Union, and replaces a sentence which is not totally accurate (ambiguous). If you are ok with the following I would appreciate it if you change the article; if not the article will stand as it is.

A nuclear-powered icebreaker is a nuclear-powered ship, purpose-built for waters covered with ice. The only country that currently operates Nuclear Powered Icebreakers is Russia. Nuclear-powered icebreakers have been considered or planned by other countries including China and Canada. Nuclear-powered icebreakers were constructed by the Soviet Union and later Russia primarily to aid shipping along the Northern Sea Route in the frozen Arctic waterways north of Siberia.

I would enjoy editing this article with you. Regards: Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In general that's fine. However, since "nuclear-powered icebreaker" is not a proper noun, it should not be capitalized. I would also aim for a structure that does not repeat "nuclear-powered icebreaker" in every sentence — perhaps "The only country that currently operates nuclear-powered icebreakers is Russia; however, such vessels have been considered or planned by other countries including Canada and China."? Finally, I think "in the frozen Arctic waterways north of Siberia" is redundant in the last sentence because that's exactly what NSR is. Tupsumato (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with capitalization and your point about redundancy - I did not make a change to capitalization because I was uncertain as to whether or not, NIP had to be all caps or all small letters. If you make a change I will support it (as mentioned its very cool that you have an interest in this area), I came to the topic from the new user suggestion page, so I was looking more to "how it reads" rather than content. Another sentence that raised question marks was;

A nuclear-powered icebreaker is a nuclear-powered ship, purpose-built for use in waters covered with ice.

Not knowing about the subject matter; Does it go through waters covered in ice; or does it break through ice covered waters? To me, the issue with the sentence was readability. Anyway feel free to make a change and I will support it.; Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the first sentences a bit. What do you think? Tupsumato (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's EPIC! great.... Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Only in cold water

That statement doesn't make any sense, that they can only cruise in the polar regions. Even in the tropics, the seawater is several hundred degrees colder than the reactor, and seawater doesn't cool the reactor anyway, the production of steam does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.223.17 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like made up nonsense to me as well. At worst, it'll have to go at a slightly reduced power level. 78.60.253.249 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What possible difference would less than 30 degrees C of water temperature make compared to the energy used to boil it off? 24.127.38.138 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm responding to an ancient discussion, but the sea water temperature limit is related to the dimensioning of sea water cooling system components such as heat exchangers. The older nuclear-powered icebreakers have such limitations, the newer ones (namely Project 22220, perhaps also Project 10510) do not. Tupsumato (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)