In Hot Water: The Effects of Even Modern Nuke Plants On Water 303
Harperdog writes "Dawn Stover has a fascinating article on the newest nuclear power plant to get approval: the Blue Castle Project on the Green River in Utah. Stover details the enormous damage done by nuke plants on local water systems, and points out that the 1-2 punch of climate change and cooling systems is already taking a toll on the ability of nuclear power plants to operate, because in summer the water they use to cool systems with is too hot even before they use it (Tennessee Valley Authority is the example). "
Interesting definition of "modern" (Score:5, Insightful)
Dumb article (Score:5, Insightful)
According to TFA: "more than one billion aquatic organisms" are killed annually by NY's Indian Point plant.
No definition of what they mean by "aquatic organism" is given. Blue whales? Minnows? Paramecium?
Magical water (Score:2, Insightful)
Pro tip: evaporating water does not make it disappear.
The complaint is that a closed-cycle plant pulls water from the river and never returns it. Well, if they already lose 5% per pass due to evaporation and, when dirty enough, pipe the water to evaporation basins, doesn't that return the water to the environment?
Should read "power plants", not "nuclear plants" (Score:5, Insightful)
All modern power generating plants that use fuel (as opposed to hydro, wind, etc.) work basically the same way. They use a fuel to generate heat (burn coal or gas, create nuclear fission), heat water to steam, and use steam to turn turbines. The water is then cooled and returned to its source, usually a river or lake. All such power plants have problems when the incoming water is too warm or they cannot cool it sufficiently before discharging it.
The only difference between a nuclear plant and a coal/gas plant is that a nuclear plant can concentrate more generating capacity at a single location, which then can require more water.
Re:Kill the planet for energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Magical water (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nuke Haters will always hate.
There will always be something that damages some part of the environment.
There will always be some scenario that could possibly result in the end of us all.
Re:Interesting definition of "modern" (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that PWR and BWR have a history that stretches back decades doesn't mean a new water reactor isn't "modern". PWR and BWR reactors are the main operating principle of the reactor - in both cases, water cooling.
Complaining that the new reactors are also water cooled is a lot like saying a car's engine can't possibly be effective or safe because it's based on the century-plus old principle of a piston-driven combustion cycle.
Going with the new for the sake of 'newness' ignores a solid foundation that has withstood the test of time.
There are advantages in using modern evolved PWR and BWR reactors - namely decades of refinements and operational experience with the design, as well as technicians that understand the reactor, and safety issues involved.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
The ironic thing about this situation is that the entire problem could be solved (especially for newer reactors) by building cooling towers rather than using rivers for cooling. But cooling towers look scary, so nobody likes them.
Re:Interesting definition of "modern" (Score:5, Insightful)
"liquid fueled molten salt reactors"
No, we're seeing *one* built, and it's purely experimental. And they don't expect to have it until 2020 or so.
"There will always be something that damages some part of the environment"
It doesn't make a difference. Nuclear power is *not* a savour even under the best-case scenarios. Lead times are so huge, and fuel lifetimes so short (like 20 years or less) that the overall impact they'll make is basically zero.
We are *far* better off investing in CCAS technology on large coal plants deploying all the wind and solar we can. Those can go in today and have long operational lifetimes. By the time we get even one *really* new plant up and running, we could have converted the vast majority of existing plants and brought on huge amounts of renewables.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:2, Insightful)
I like them.
Re:There are other options I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be true if you were trying to cool the water with the energy you extracted *from the water*. But a nuclear reactor does not conserve energy, it has input from the nuclear fuel. The only reason you need to cool the water at all is because the fuel is generating more heat than you can extract in your turbines, either because of their design or because of the limited electricity demand. If you have a place to dump the extra heat, using some of that electricity to get it from point A to point B is not thermodynamically implausible.
The reason this is a stupid idea is completely unrelated, though. If the reactor design requires active refrigeration, this is even more likely to fail than simple pumps, and you run a much higher risk of melting down. And if it is not required, no one would want to pay extra for a redundant overly-complicated system unless there are other reasons not to use the passive system in normal operation.
Re:Interesting definition of "modern" (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuclear power is *not* a savour even under the best-case scenarios. Lead times are so huge, and fuel lifetimes so short (like 20 years or less) that the overall impact they'll make is basically zero.
Long lead time arguments are mostly an "Eric and Lyle Menendez [wikipedia.org] demand the court's mercy because they are orphans" argument. Omni-obstructionists use over-the-top scaremongering and blatant barratry to force huge delays to any nuclear project, then use the long delays that they have caused themselves as an argument.
"20 years of uranium" is a bogus number that has been debunked many times. 1) 20 years proven reserves does not mean it will run out in 20 years. 2) That's 20 years proven reserves assuming the current insanely wasteful "once-through, throw most of the fuel away" fuel non-cycle. Reprocess the wastes, and the proven reserves goes up vastly. 3) That's also assuming that breeder reactors will be forever banned. Add breeders to the mix, and that's another huge boost to proven reserves. 4) Thorium reactors. According to the CRC handbook, thorium is about as common as lead, and "There is probably more energy available from thorium than from uranium and all fossil fuels combined." And finally, 5) back in the 1970s, Japan demonstrated an ion exchange process to extract uranium from sea water at a cost of about $100/pound in 1970 dollars. That's expensive... but you get enough energy out of fission that it would make sense if there were no other source.
Re:Interesting definition of "modern" (Score:4, Insightful)
One problem I have with breeders isn't that they contribute to proliferation - Dr. Kahn basically tossed that argument into the winds - it's that they don't seem to work well. There are a number of breeder installation wordwide - most have had major accidents / problems. It isn't a technology that has shown it can be geared up. Perhaps it can but the British and Japanese aren't doing an especially good job of convincing anyone.