Posted on 03/11/2009 4:03:48 AM PDT by pobeda1945
YAKUTSK, March 11 (RIA Novosti) - Four floating nuclear power plants will be installed in the northeastern Siberian republic of Yakutia under an agreement between the Federal Nuclear Power Agency and the local administration, local authorities said on Wednesday.
"The implementation of this project will make it possible to considerably reduce outlays on the delivery of fuel for the existing energy supply system, and raise the quality and reliability of energy provision, taking into account industrial development in northern Yakutia," the republic's presidential administration said.
The floating nuclear plants to be installed in four districts of Yakutia are intended to be put into service in 2013-2015, the administration said.
Investment in the project at the current stage is estimated at over 30 billion rubles ($838 million). Options are also being considered to involve private investors, the administration said.
See answer above (Nbr 20)
I haven’t noted any greater number of diseased fish caught in these warm water discharge areas than other areas.
If anything the fish are larger and healthier.
In indoor pools or outside in concrete sarcophaguses.
It looks like a riverboat casino. They have great buffets.
If anything the fish are larger and healthier.
I mentioned it because here in Illinois, the Clinton N-Power plant discharges into the man made Clinton Reservoir. The fish appear healthy but devoid of the deep color of healthy fish and many are infested with worms. Of course I’ve seen this in the supposedly cold waters in southern Canada also. The water temp around the plant is in the low 80°F range.
Power plants could put all the waste heat to use by using evaporation ponds. This would leverage solar energy to transport fresh water to a higher location where the extra energy can eventually be harvested by hydro dams. It also supports more plant life to convert CO2 to O2 and food. This in turn supports more fish and wild life. The right kind of clouds can provide major climate cooling in the form of shade or warming in the form of a blanket. Rather than new carbon taxes earmarked for socialist money pits, building evaporation ponds would actually do something useful for planet Earth.
Why, that looks like some kind of Superfish!
How would an evaporation pond serve a different function than the currently used evaporative cooling towers?
Maybe I’m wrong but I think those are engineered to cool volumes of water to a certain point. An evaporation pond can be engineered to combine solar and wind energy with waste heat for maximum cloud production.
Nature converts much of the heat released into it by cities and factories into extra evaporation. It’s known that rainfall is substantially higher 20 miles downwind of heat islands. It’s just that the process is not optimized to convert the maximum amount of waste energy into something useful, such as more clouds and rain from saltwater.
The natural draft created by the heat and geometry is FAR larger than the average wind, not to mention that they are splashing down though millions of cups mixing the air directly with the water creating a huge surface area to volume ratio when compared with a pond.
I would be VERY surprised if someone could show more moisture going into the air by a pond and creating the same necessary cooling effect for the power plant.
Adding a solar heat load would only make the process more inefficient as the actual need is cooling the water.
A brake on a wheel is engineered to waste motion energy as efficiently and cheaply as possible. You could also pay extra and convert the energy into something that could be reused. I’m sure it makes no economic sense to use evaporation ponds rather than cooling towers but I’m speculating that would be better than paying a climate change tax. If a coal plant can create extra shade clouds, rain, lush plant growth, and bubble CO2 through biofuel algae ponds too, they shouldn’t have to pay a climate change tax.
Cheaply and effectively, but efficiently? This is by definition burning off energy and not recovered. Only a hybrid regenerative braking takes efficiency into account.
I’m sure it makes no economic sense to use evaporation ponds rather than cooling towers but I’m speculating that would be better than paying a climate change tax. If a coal plant can create extra shade clouds, rain, lush plant growth, and bubble CO2 through biofuel algae ponds too, they shouldn’t have to pay a climate change tax.
The point you are missing is that creating clouds and rain and corresponding plant growth would not be improved by using a pond instead of a natural draft cooling tower. Bubbling CO2 requires a CO2 capture system, a total separate and VERY expensive system that also reduces total plant efficiency. Reducing total plant efficiency means burning more coal to produce the same amount of power. Unless the algae is kept in its form forever, it doesn't capture the C02, it only moves it through another process first before it is released to the atmoshpere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.