Kievans Submit Draft Report on Completing Khmelnitsky Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4.

[NNadir]

The Kiev Institute Energoproekt (KIEP) has completed the draft version of the feasibility study for the completion of two more units at Ukraine's Khmelnitsky nuclear power plant. Meanwhile, a Russian bank has said that it is ready to help finance the project.

KIEP has submitted the draft version of the feasibility study to Ukraine's national electricity generator EnergoAtom...

...In June 2010, Russia and Ukraine signed an intergovernmental agreement on the resumption of work on the two partially built reactors at Khmelnitsky. The Ukrainian parliament ratified that agreement last month. Under the agreement, Russia will provide financing for the amount required to design, construct and commission the two reactors, including for payments for services and goods supplied by Russia. Any components supplied from Ukraine for the project would be financed from the Ukrainian budget.

According to EnergoAtom, Russia's Sberbank 'has confirmed its readiness to provide credit to EnergoAtom for the construction of Khmelnitsky 3 and 4.'

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Khmelnitsky_feasibility_study_progresses-0302115.html">Khmelnitsky feasibility study progresses

Two reactors already operate at Khmelnitsky. Unit 1 went into operation in 1987, and unit 2, after construction was suspended, was finally completed in 2005.

Since Unit 2 began operations, the plant's annual energy production has been on the order of 15 billion kWh. This means that the average continuous power output of the reactors is 1711 MWe. The energy output produced in the two small buildings is thus more than twice the output that the entire nation of Denmark is able to produce from its rickety wind farms.

The two reactors are each rated at 1000 MWe, meaning that the capacity utilization of the 85.5%. This is relatively poor performance for a nuclear power plant, since most nuclear power plants operate at 90% of capacity utilization. It is, however, much higher than the capacity utilization of the solar PV plant at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, which operated with a http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/2/4/941106/-January-2011-Capacity-Utilization-of-the-MOCA-Solar-PV-Unit-and-Macajuel-Oil.">1.3% capacity utilization in January 2011, producing zero energy thus far for the entire month of February. For the entire month of January, the solar PV station at MOCA produced zero power for only 7 of the 31 days, meaning that February is positioned to hold the 2011 record for days that the system produced zero energy.

Happily we will thus miss any reports from New Englanders here about how everyone is Kiev was wiped out by Chernobyl, since, as they are living in solar nirvana, their computers must have had their batteries run down two or three days ago. I'm sure our anti-nukes will check in once the snow on the billion solar roofs melts.

More information on the Khelnitsky nuclear plant can be found here:

http://www.energoatom.kiev.ua/en/nuclear_plants/npp_khmelnytska/info">Khmelnitsky Nuclear Power Plant

Have a nice day tomorrow.

[Kolesar]

1. Flame bait...eom

[GliderGuider]

2. And announcements about the opening of new wind farms aren't?

There's flame bait on the internet? I'm shocked, I tell you - shocked!

I've seen announcements of wind farms that were just as obvious flame bait aimed at the pro-nuclear contingent. Yawn.

[NNadir]

3. It's flame bait whenever they can't respond to the facts.

The fact here is that the Ukrainians, who know more about Chernobyl than our anti-nukes here, are increasing their nuclear energy capacity, and thus couldn't care less what provincial anti-nukes in the United States think.

[Kolesar]

10. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio gives the generators everything they ask for

Senator Voinovich helped them. They just can't get their shit together. That's why the nukes fail.

[NNadir]

12. Really?

Um, fail?

Nuclear power is the largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy in the United States.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

I would inform you that 8.427 (nuclear primary energy production) is more than 86.87 times larger than 0.097 (solar primary energy production) but undoubtedly this would go over your head, so it's better to just obviate your statement that solar energy (and wind energy) are, um, failures, which of course they are.

In the last decade of pointing this business out, I have never met a single anti-nuke who could pass the mathematics portion of an admissions test to the sixth grade.

[Kolesar]

17. You keep whining that nuclear generation has been stopped for 30 years by "save the whales" types

...in zodiacs. The fact is that the industry sucks despite all the public financing that it gets.

Looking at your posts, the public relations for the nuclear industry supremely sucks.

[NNadir]

18. Um, the nuclear industry hasn't been STOPPED.

It is the world's largest, by far, of climate change gas free primary energy.

I have produced the numbers lots of time, only to be met with Pat Robertson type responses.

Nor am I do "public relations." I feel no responsibility to cater to ignornant people, a point I make repeatedly.

I call the stupid and the ignorant "stupid and ignorant."

The reason for doing this is ethical. Ignorance kills.

Got it?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

[Kolesar]

19. Nor am I do "public relations."

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

5. Nameplate capacity of all the worlds wind = 1376 TWh. Actual provided energy = 340 TWh.

(340/1376) * 100 = 24.7% capacity factor.

[jpak]

4. Chernobyl deniers = anti-science mystics

yup

[Nederland]

6. Chernobyl deniers?

What exactly are we pro-nukes denying? We don't deny the fact that the accident happened or that it was horrible. We simply maintain that the design of the plant was the reason for the accident, not some intrinsic flaw in nuclear power itself. If any group of people on the planet have a reason to doubt the intrinsic safety of nuclear power, it is the people of Ukraine. The fact that these people, who unlike you actually experienced the worst nuclear accident in history, have calmly proceeded to expand their use of nuclear power speaks volumes.

[jpak]

7. Chernobyl deniers claim it was not a devastating accident - only a few people died

They claim the Exclusion Zone isn't really so bad - some old folks live still there.

They have claimed that the Exclusion Zone is a wildlife paradise - it is not.

And other ridiculous horseshit

yup

[Nederland]

8. I suppose that depends entirely on your definition of "devastating"

That is a sideshow to the real argument though. The real question is whether the accident was the result of a bad design, or something intrinsic to nuclear power. If you believe it was a bad design, that means its OK to continue using nuclear power so long as we don't do stupid things like build reactors with large positive temperature coefficients of reactivity and without containment structures. However, if you believe the accident was the result of something intrinsic to nuclear power and therefore unavoidable by proper design, then you think continuing to use nuclear power is idiotic. Clearly the Ukrainian people have made their choice.

[madokie]

9. Its not so important as to why it happened

whats important is what happens when it does happen. I'm not ready for a large segment of our country to be contaminated.

Nuclear deniers is right and you fit that to a T

[joshcryer]

13. It's not so important as to why it happened?

What!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

15. Interesting assumption

Let's consider your statement:

Its not so important as to why it happened, whats important is what happens when it does happen.

Not only does this statement simply assume an Chernobyl style event will happen again, it is self contradictory. You can't assume that something will happen a second time if you don't understand why it happened the first time. As a result, understanding "why it happened" is more important than "what happens when it does happen".

[Nihil]

16. Damn your logic - they have indignant flaming memes to propagate!

>> Its not so important as to why it happened, whats important is what happens when
>> it does happen.
>
> Not only does this statement simply assume an Chernobyl style event will happen
> again, it is self contradictory. You can't assume that something will happen a
> second time if you don't understand why it happened the first time. As a result,
> understanding "why it happened" is more important than "what happens when it does
> happen".

100% correct.

Unfortunately, it has nearly that chance of flying straight over the heads of those
who argue that "Its not so important as to why it happened" with a straight face.

:shrug:

[NNadir]

11. I'm quite sure that our YUPpies know far more about Chernobyl than the people who live there.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the people who live there are not interested in the babblings of people who speak of things about which they know, um, zero.

Of course, it is also worth noting that the Chinese built the three Gorges dam after the world's largest, by far, energy disaster, the disaster that dumb anti-nukes ignore, the one at Banqiao.

I have yet to see one anti-nuke even express as shred of compassion over that disaster, which killed hundreds of thousands of people almost instantly.

Mary Mycio, Ukrainian American who returned to the Ukraine to study issues connected with the accident at Chernobyl, the one that stupid people prattle on and on and on and on about even as millions of people die year after year from, um, so called renewable energy, wrote a fine book on Chernobyl, called "Wormwood Forest." Since I, um, know how to read, I took the liberty of reviewing it on a blog. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/9/103512/0949">"Wormwood Forest: A Natural History of Chernobyl," Some Comments.

In the meantime, our anti-science mystics obsess and obsess and obsess and obsess on Chernobyl, blowing their ignorance out their ass, even as the World Health Organization routinely reports day after day, year after year, on the http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/index.html">million plus renewable energy deaths per year.

Many thousands of people died in Ukraine from coal mining in the Donets Basin coal mines, but we hear not a whimper from the Chernobyl squad, because the Chernobyl squad - asses all - live solely on selective attention. Their claim is that coal can kill tens of millions each decade, and still they want to prattle on about the 1986 accident at Chernobyl. From my perspective this demonstrates yet again that in their twisted, unenlightened, dogmatic opinions, only nuclear energy needs to be perfect, and everything else can kill at will.

This is, um, deadly. Nuclear power need not be perfect to be better than everything else. It only needs to be better than everything else, which it is.

The Ukrainians apparently know that are uninterested entirely on the imperialistic ravings of intellectual lightweights.

Have a nice evening.