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.
The Ruskies have such an outstanding record with nuclear power plants. /S
Um... What happens if a really large wave hits this thing?
It will give tired polar bears a place to rest.
Pre-fabricating a series of standard reactors off-site in a production-line shipyard type facility, then pulling the barge to the remote area is a good idea. We could do that too - but .....
My experience with mechanical stuff is that if something can go wrong..... it will!!
are earthquakes the reason?
"...Absolutely nothing can go wrong...can go wrong...can go wrong...can go wrong..."
And when it is time to decomission, just tow it out into the deep water and open up the sea cocks!
I see no provisions for water cooling towers on this thing. I wonder what the discharge temperature is for the cooling water.
LLS
It’s floating on large Siberian rivers ... River water flows under the barge, gets sucked up into the coolers under the turbines, and goes back to the river.
No cooling tower needed. 6-10 foot diameter pipes. (2-3 meter - it’s a Russki design) but no cooling towers. They are only needed for enviro restrictions here in the US where the hot water is forbidden to go back in the river.
Simple. Easy. Cheap. Been done that way on the (up to) 500 Meg reactors for aircraft carriers for 50 years.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
So, why does the US restrict discharge temperature? I realize the design is much simpler if you can just dump 120 degree F water back into the river. From an engineering point of view, it is no-brainer. But are there actual environmental impacts that are worth avoiding?
Of course, you are rejecting heat to either the river or the atmosphere, so which has the greater impact?
In my experience living on Lake Erie near several power plants with hot water discharge pipes in to the lake, some of the best fishing is on or near those hot water discharges.
some of the best fishing is on or near those hot water discharges.
But are the fish good to eat? Sometimes the water gets too warm and the fish health is compromised.
Yucca has been planned for years, looked pretty dead and stable to me... where they puttin it now?
Only the enviro’s think health is harmed by a few miles of slightly warmer water. (Brook trout i na 6” deep mountain stream 20 feet across? That's not where power plants discharge.
Heating up the Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri or Snake River 2 degrees for two or three miles? Get real.
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.