Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Just for fun, I went and googled a temperature map for Russia today. The word that spring to mind is "Yikes". Continental climate and very northernly geography means that Russia gets very, very cold. Which in turn means that unless they get their heat from some other technology than gas, they are not going to sell a joule that is not strictly surplus. Because they would literally die.
Suddenly the various stabs the Soviet Union and Russia have made at nuclear district heating make a lot of sense - when the temperature hits -40, that probably seems like a lot better idea than it does to people in less.. Hostile. Climes.
by Thomas on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 at 04:07:18 AM EST
I have no idea how much effect these "stabs" have had, as I understand that in Moscow communal district heating is set at ~24 degrees C. Permanently.

Apparently, no one in a flat can change that temperature, every room is heated equally.

Is that surplus heating...? Or is it just a result of Russian splurging on gas?

by Nomad on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 at 04:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe that's the area that relies on nuclear district heating.  1/5th of 1% of Russia's district heating apparently does come from nuclear.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 at 05:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was the same with the steam heating in my Upper West Side apartment. The way to change the temperature is to open the window.....
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 7th, 2012 at 01:30:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hardset miniums on heating are not unusual in rental properties everywhere that needs heating, because turning the heat off entirely during a coldspell can cause very expensive damage to the property. Usually it is a bit more flexible and sane than just "Termostat, what termostat?" tough, but the broader point is that while adopting best-practice in insulation could probably cut Russias heating needs in half, half of "Oh, my fracking god" it is still going to be quite a high number.

Russia is quite heavily set on a nuclear path to decarbonization, and I dont really see that they have that much of a choice. - Russia has good hydro reserves, and quite substantial biomass waste from their forestry operations, but other renewable options do not really get along with russian weather. At all.
Not that carbon is why they are doing it - Russia is building reactors because burning gas that could be sold abroad is an affront to gasproms accountants, and the cold war left them with an enormous legacy of institutional expertise in all things related to fission.

by Thomas on Tue Feb 7th, 2012 at 06:10:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can see your point about central heating using water, but I don't see what harm turning off steam would do. Maybe it's simply that there's no way of switching it off without switching it off to the apartments above you.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 7th, 2012 at 06:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
wind turbines have run in Arctic and Antarctic environments since the 80's, cheaper than nukes. they run in the Ukraine, they can run in Russia. and they're modular, can build a vast supply chain in a few years.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Feb 7th, 2012 at 08:36:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Russias cost of nuclear is not the same as the cost in the west. Very emphatically not. They have an ongoing build programme that clocks in at about 2.5 billion dollars per reactor, and without significant price overuns. (they do have regular delays due to not having enough capital) I am not sure how that works out per kwh as I have no clue what cost of capital Rosatom pays, but as they are planning to base reactors in the Kalingrad enclave on the baltic explicitly in order to export electricity to europe, their accountants presumably reckon that it is outright cheaper than european coal fired power.

Also, the planned Arkhangelesk, Voronezh, Saratov, Dimitrovgrad Chukoyka, Severodvinsk, Leningrad and Severs plants are to be either exclusively heating, or cogen plant which, no, windmills really not an option for that.

by Thomas on Tue Feb 7th, 2012 at 02:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nomad:
Or is it just a result of Russian splurging on gas?

According to a friend who has worked with post-Soviet energy on a city level, the efficiency is horrible with lots of heat leaking out.

So I would say that it is probably a legacy of large-scale planning that did not really care about energy efficiency.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Feb 7th, 2012 at 03:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series