That makes sense. In an earlier climate conference some oil billionaires had a similar idea, but instead to create artificial scarcity and drive energy prices up by moving the power plant to the highest bidder
Some countries depend on them, Dominican republic for example. According to the locals it’s been reliable except during hurricanes, but that’s an extreme.
Seems like it was what they could afford. It puts the plant right near the core of the city where it’s most needed, and right next to the fuel transfer station for the whole island makes logistics yet simpler.
Why it’s floating vs on land, I truly don’t know. I expect it’s because the city was already historical and built up (the DR being Columbus’ first landing place in the Americas).
However, megawatts of power generation isn’t exactly something that can be thrown together in a couple weeks. It can take months to stabilize a grid to the pint the ship can disengage.
We already have floating nuclear power plants and we’ve never had an issue with one (in the US at least). Look at any modern aircraft carrier or naval submarine. Many of them are able to be connected to shore and power nearby buildings in emergencies.
Floating nuclear power plants would be safer in disasters than ones on land if anything. We literally use water to block the radiation since it’s so effective at it.
Oh great, this terrible idea is actually going into works
It’s often a disaster recovery type of thing.
That makes sense. In an earlier climate conference some oil billionaires had a similar idea, but instead to create artificial scarcity and drive energy prices up by moving the power plant to the highest bidder
Some countries depend on them, Dominican republic for example. According to the locals it’s been reliable except during hurricanes, but that’s an extreme.
Isn’t that a rather inefficient solution?
Seems like it was what they could afford. It puts the plant right near the core of the city where it’s most needed, and right next to the fuel transfer station for the whole island makes logistics yet simpler.
Why it’s floating vs on land, I truly don’t know. I expect it’s because the city was already historical and built up (the DR being Columbus’ first landing place in the Americas).
https://www.powermag.com/estrella-del-mar-iii-a-visionary-floating-power-plant-is-powers-plant-of-the-year/
Oh cool
It’s supposed to be an emergency solution.
However, megawatts of power generation isn’t exactly something that can be thrown together in a couple weeks. It can take months to stabilize a grid to the pint the ship can disengage.
Edit: mega, not kilo. I was thinking too small.
I think you’re looking for megawatts
Yep, I did mean that. Thanks!
Wait until you hear about Floating nuclear power plants.
We already have floating nuclear power plants and we’ve never had an issue with one (in the US at least). Look at any modern aircraft carrier or naval submarine. Many of them are able to be connected to shore and power nearby buildings in emergencies.
Floating nuclear power plants would be safer in disasters than ones on land if anything. We literally use water to block the radiation since it’s so effective at it.
The article on Nimitz class carriers is a great Wikipedia rabbit hole to dive into.
I remember watching a youtube video about what i think was a large land train built by Russia that was a portable nuclear power station.
That is awesome
This was an excellent read, thank you for linking that Wikipedia article. I never knew about these and they are cool af