On 09/10/16 13:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 11:42:19 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

En el artÃ*culo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

They continue with the misleading publicity for the output of the
proposed Cardiff scheme, claiming it will be 3,000MW, when in reality
this output will only occur for a limited period at peak tidal flow,
and averaged over a year the output will be a fifth of that, something
like 600MW. And it will be intermittent, on-off-on-off etc. four times
a day

Something like this would seem to be a better solution: cheaper, doesn't
block the bay, constant power, presumably lower impact on the
environment (if it doesn't do a Chernobyl). One issue would be a
transmission uplink to the grid which would still need to be built.

https://www.rt.com/news/361908-lomonosov-fnpp-russia-platform/

This caught my eye though: 300MWt and 75MWe. 25% efficiency? Seems
very low. What about primary containment, and corrosion caused by
seawater?

Mo http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/english/lomonosov

Some controversy in Russia about it:

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issu...-says-russias-
floating-nuke-plant-must-be-smaller

75MWe out of 300MWt is indeed a bit low; Hinkley C will produce 9,000
MWt, 3,200 MWe, an efficiency of 35.5%. Ignoring the source of heat,
once you've created the steam, the turbine and generating bit is much
the same for nuclear plants as it is for coal-fired plants, the latter
having around 30-35% efficiency, so much the same as nuclear, as you
would expect.

Se my other po9st. That's with full condensers and reasonably high
superheated steam temps.

Both of those increase plant costs and weight, which is significant in a
'floater'


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin