A number of small nuclear reactors are installed on a vessel, capable of generating enough electricity and heat to desalinate water that would be enough for an entire city
Energy is one of the most important resources in our world. In order to provide it to population concentrations, a large and stable infrastructure is needed, which in turn requires a large financial investment on the one hand, and a long time to build it on the other hand. But what can be done in remote areas or in developing countries, in cases of loose or non-existent infrastructure? Building power plants takes a long time, and the electricity is needed as quickly as possible. Everything that was said above is also true for water - in cases of major disruptions in its supply, the dependence on its import is associated with quite a few difficulties. If we had at our disposal a "battery" that could provide energy to generate electricity or desalinate water for an entire city, these problems could be solved. But where can you find such a battery? It turns out that the answer is on the way - a floating nuclear power plant suitable for this role is currently being built in Russia.
The idea is not theoretically complicated - a number of small nuclear reactors are installed on a vessel, capable of generating enough electricity and heat to desalinate water that would be enough for an entire city. The sailing vessel, which is actually a platform without propulsion (this is in order not to change Russia's naval doctrine) can be towed to any beach in the world, where a relatively simple infrastructure will be built to connect the station with the beach, and here we have electricity and water. The nuclear plants to be built in Russia will have two nuclear reactors, each of which will provide, at standard power, 35 megawatts of electricity and 150 megawatts of heat, and at its maximum power it will be able to supply electricity to a city with 200,000 inhabitants, and in addition to pump 240,000 cubic meters of water per day .
This is not about technologies that are fundamentally different from what we have known for years. For example - nuclear submarines that use small nuclear reactors have existed for 56 years (the first nuclear submarine was the American SSN-571 "Nautilus"). Civilian ships that move with the help of nuclear power are also nothing new - the Soviet nuclear icebreaker "Lenin" celebrated its anniversary this month. The floating nuclear power plant will use the two KLT-40C type nuclear reactors that are based on the nuclear reactors of the "Arctic" type nuclear icebreakers. In addition to the reactors, equipment that we would expect to find in a power plant will also be installed on the platforms - steam turbines, generators, pumps and more.
The idea of a nuclear reactor is not new either - for the first time a nuclear power plant was installed on a ship back in the 60s, when the MH-1A reactor was installed on the US Navy ship Sturgis and provided electricity and water to the Panama Canal Zone from 1968 to 1975. Also the first attempt to turn the idea Lamemori was born in the USA, when in the 70's the company Offshore Power Systems was established, but for financial reasons it failed and broke up.
But now it seems that floating nuclear power plants will indeed be built and precisely in Russia, where all the necessary conditions exist for the success of the project. Russia has the greatest experience with nuclear ships - from a huge submarine fleet in the days of the USSR, to nuclear icebreakers that were not built by any other country. It has the necessary heavy industry - the construction of the station was undertaken by the SevMash plant, the world's largest ship manufacturing plant, whose main specialty is nuclear submarines. Other companies from the heavy military and civil industry that specialize in nuclear and electrical infrastructures are also taking part in the project. As with any economic project, it is important to have customers - and they do exist. Many regions of the world need energy, including Russian cities in northern Siberia and the Far East that suffer from poor energy infrastructure, especially in winter. That's why a nuclear power plant named after Lomonosov, which will be the first of its kind, according to the current schedule, in 2010 will supply electricity to the city where it was built - Severodbinsk. Another nuclear power plant has also been promised to supply electricity to the city of Vladivostok when the 2012 Asian Nations Summit is held there. A total of 7 stations are expected to be completed by 2015.
Like any large technological project, especially one that contains the word "nuclear", a floating nuclear power plant is faced with two problems that worry the world today - the quality of the environment and the threat of terrorism. The developers strongly claim that the project has passed strict government tests on safety and environmental issues. They also mention the rich experience that Russia has, and mention that there is no known accident with a nuclear vessel that resulted in the breaching of the isolation of nuclear reactors in submarines or ships. In order not to violate international agreements, it was also promised that the stations would remain under Russian control (only the products - electricity and water - would be sold), and strict assurance arrangements would be made on the ship.
But the real question is the economic viability of the project. According to the experts involved in the project, a floating nuclear power plant is much more profitable than building conventional nuclear reactors. The construction of such a station will take about 5 years, one charge with fuel will be enough for 3 years of operation, and every 12 years a total renovation of the station will be required at the manufacturing plant, which will take about two years. During the renovations, the customer will be offered a replacement station. Each station is programmed for at least 3 cycles. The price of the station, as of 2003, is estimated at 6 billion rubles (then 200 million dollars, today about 250 million dollars) and the payback time is 8 years.
The opponents, on the other hand, raise questions and counterclaims. The assembly of the land infrastructure is the customer's responsibility and budgeting, and is the cost of the ship's security and the nuclear fuel taken into account? Is it not economically more worthwhile to build one large nuclear system instead of several small reactors (meaning for internal use)? However, several countries have shown interest in the project - according to some reports, India intends to invest in the project, and China is interested in buying such a station, while partially budgeting the construction of the ship, at the same time as producing certain parts in its territory.
Floating nuclear power plants have several disadvantages and advantages, with the main question being the profitability of the project. Apparently, Russia has arrived at the positive answer, as the reports are published about the progress of the construction of the station and the beginning of the preparation of the appropriate experts in the institutions for technological studies. Will the residents of Severodbinsk and other cities in Siberia receive electricity and heat from 2010 without breakdowns and from a nuclear source? Probably the answer to this depends on the factor that affects the stability of countries and the life of almost every person in the world - the price of oil.
8 תגובות
The new book "Nuclear power - the energy of the future", by Dr. Verda Bar.
In the book: history, science, radioactivity, nuclear reactors in the world, malfunctions and their prevention, various uses of nuclear energy, environmental quality (global warming), health, hardon gas, the Chernobyl disaster and more. Recommended for general knowledge seekers, students and educated readers in general. Details here:
http://studio-dan.biz/nuclear_power_book.html
Does anyone know what the function of the power plant is
Correction - what he did wrong in the first line. The correct form:
Absolutely not, there were other accidents. Also, in the case of Kursk, the problem was not with the nuclear facility itself (by the way, the Russians bring this example to their credit - the nuclear reactor was not damaged even though the submarine was badly damaged and sank).
In the case of Kursk, the problem was not with the nuclear facility. Definately not. There were other accidents.
But, in my opinion, it can be said that there is information about the significant events (the disasters that "almost" happened, or were on a relatively small scale - that's another story). It is important to emphasize - the information does exist, but it is not necessarily known to those who were not interested in the subject. For example - everyone knows the tragic event that happened in Chernobyl, but very few have heard about the accident at the "Mayak" plant, which is considered, by some experts, the second largest nuclear disaster in history. Not all the details are known, but rough data can certainly be found. The same is the case with nuclear vessels - a simple search on the Internet or in the appropriate literature will give the list of nuclear submarines that sank or were severely damaged.
But let's get back to the point - the dangers are there, without a doubt. On the other hand, it is not correct to enter into a panic, as they have done in all kinds of Western publications ("a chance for Naval Chernobyl", etc.). The risk analysis should be approached realistically and without emotions.
Dear Semyon Semyonov,
First, thank you very much for the additions. 250 million dollars is not a lot of money when it comes to something of this magnitude. Sounds like a relatively inexpensive investment if the result is positive for humanity (at least in the near term).
Regarding the malfunctions of nuclear reactors and communist Russia and/or other countries, I would recommend all of us to question again and again both the information we have about them and the information we don't have about them. The fact that the Soviet Union did not tell us about accidents or nuclear submarines that went wrong while performing their duties - still does not mean that there were none. I remind all of us that the Cold War has only officially ended and there is still a lot of tension among the superpowers who will certainly not be happy to volunteer information about one or another secret weapon of war.
In the case of the Kursk submarine they may not have had a choice. In the case of Chernobyl - as above. Are these the only accidents in the context of a nuclear vessel?
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar - Rusofil
Good evening to you.
For Ami Bachar:
The (modern) drachmas went out of use in 2001, making it difficult to calculate the price in this currency. 😉 Anyway, I updated the price, thanks for the comment.
In connection with the heat energy of KDA - the idea is not new. Humans have used geysers and hot springs to heat their homes for hundreds of years. Today, in countries like Greenland, geothermal power plants operate, which turn the heat of spring water or steam from fissures in volcanic areas into electricity.
The problem is, it is easy to reach the layers found at high temperatures only in the volcanic areas. It is true that at a great enough depth there will be a high temperature, but the process of drilling, the support for the circulation of steam and other currents that transfer the thermal energy from the depths of the earth to the surface, make the process ineffective and unprofitable.
Yehuda Sabdarmish:
First of all, it refers to nuclear reactors on a vessel. Secondly, these reactors also had malfunctions, but not a single malfunction caused the release of radioactive materials into the environment.
.
Benkar is good for Ami Bachar
The idea of the pit that you brought up is a really cool idea, but it has one big drawback, as we all know a pit cannot be moved, a ship can.
Beyond that, I did not understand the claim in the article that as if there were no failures in Russian reactors, they are probably ignoring history.
But the idea is a good one, slave that already has orders.
May it continue to be a beautiful day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Interesting and intriguing article. On the face of it, the nuclear idea seems to make perfect sense from an ecological point of view, since it is very focused and the waste can be directly removed, and there is a good chance of using by-products of such a nuclear reactor as well. I wonder what Yom will give birth to - because only time will know how to teach us if the venture is profitable and successful and good for our world.
Six billion rubles... what a price... exactly how much does it cost in drachmas? It is interesting how much should be invested to dig a deep pit through which we will extract energy from the internal heat of the earth. It seems to me that under our feet (and all the layers of oil) there is an unused energy bomb.