[resending message that bounced because xent's / was full -Kragen]
Gordon Mohr <email@example.com> writes:
> The Russians seem to have used naval nuclear reactors to generate
> electricity for onshore use on several occasions, most recently in
> 1999 in their far east. From:
> # 5/12/99: NUCLEAR SUBMARINES CONTINUE TO SUPPLY POWER TO KAMCHATKA PENINSULA
> # During the early 1999 energy crisis in Kamchatka, the reactors of
> # several nuclear submarines were used to supply power at the Rybachiy
> # Nuclear Submarine Base. There were difficulties, however, because a
> # 5,400A current had to be sent through power lines designed for only
> # 1,200A. Some of the engines and equipment overheated, presenting a
> # constant threat of malfunction. Although submarines supplied power
> # to another Kamchatka town in late 1998 (see 11/11/98 entry below)
> # and the navy succeeded in supplying itself with power in this case,
> # the use of nuclear submarine reactors is not a permanent solution.
> # Nuclear submarine equipment requires repair or possibly replacement
> # after 2,000 to 3,000 hours of continuous use. The nuclear-powered
> # communications ship, the Ural, could also be used to provide power
> # to the Kamchatka Peninsula. The ship is capable of delivering
> # 18-20MW of electricity to shore and will be able to supply power
> # for approximately four more years.
attention to the general reader: if the American left had not allowed
itself to be be duped by the quasi-environmentalists, we would now be
depending on clean, safe nuclear power for our energy needs. Like
France. Ask a salmon or a coal miner about nuclear power sometime.
We are sowing what we planted, or didn't 'plant', thirty years ago.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:17:33 PDT