Slashdot Mirror


Heat Wave Shuts Down Alabama Reactor

mdsolar writes "In a first for the US, one of three nuclear reactors at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama has been shut down because the Tennessee River is too hot to provide adequate cooling for the waste heat produced by the reactor. This is happening as the TVA faces its highest demand for power ever, reports the Houston Chronicle. This effect has been seen in Europe in the past, forcing reduced generation, but the US has until now been immune to the problem. The TVA will buy power elsewhere and impose higher rates, blaming reduced river flow as a result of drought."

19 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. not immune by thhamm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >but the US has, until now, been immune to the problem.
    no, not immune. it just hasn't happend until now.

  2. It is about boiling rivers by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It ain't about problems with the cooling itself, for that the rivers would need to be far hotter. The problem is enviromental, if you add extra heat to an already warm river you risk that it rises to the point were you destroy the eco-system. Simply put, the fishes get cooked and the algea grow out of control.

    This is considered to be a bad thing.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  3. Waste heat? by Khyber · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why not just figure out a way to turn waste heat into energy to avoid heating the river up unnecessarily?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Waste heat? by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because "heat" is the most difficult form of energy to convert to other forms. Not difficult in an engineering sense, but difficult from a basic thermodynamics perspective. In order to convert heat into another form of energy, you have to have a reservoir available with lower heat density -- temperature. Otherwise your process won't spontaneously go (and that's the problem with energy; non-spontaneous conversion to another form only _appears_ non-spontaneous; thermodynamics guarantees that you've just overlooked a pathway in which the energy is being converted to a "less useful", or higher entropy, form). In this case, the reservoir with lower heat density (the river) doesn't have low _enough_ heat density (or it's restricted by environmental concerns).

      That's just what the TVA is having problems with. After all, nuclear plants essentially use the heat produced by degrading high quality nuclear energy to lower quality steam or the equivalent. This is allowed to degrade to even lower quality by taking a steam jet with well-defined momentum, and impacting it on a turbine. After the turbine (producing electricity, etc.), the steam has almost no quality, and perhaps can be used for secondary heating purposes. At this stage, you have to get rid of the still-high-temperature but low quality steam, and they do that by rejecting the heat into the river.

    2. Re:Waste heat? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only it were that simple.

      Imagine one of those old-style water wheels. Your question is akin to asking, "Why not figure out a way to use the energy of that flowing water without wasting it by allowing it to flow away?"

  4. Re:What to do with all that waste heat... by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Correlation does not imply causation.
    Sigh. Learn to use actual logic instead of mindlessly quoting logical fallacies. The GP was mentioning a bunch of things, which are well known, that give a preponderance of evidence for global warming. Add to that the fact that the mechanism causing the problems are well known.


    To give you an example. Someone starts screaming in public that they are going to kill you. They show up at your house with a large handgun and force the door. A couple minutes later, several shots are heard. The man runs out of your house without the handgun. You are found dead and the coroner determines the hour of your death to be around the time the man with the handgun showed up at your door. Noone else has shown up that day other than the man with the handgun. The bullets which have blasted what little brains you have out the back of your head are determined to come from the gun lying on the floor, which is the same one brought in by the man who forced his way into your house.


    Now, given all this, you would apparently parrot the rule saying "Correlation is not causation".

    --
    I feel like death on a soda cracker.
  5. Re:This is actually really good news by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 4, Insightful

    s/ice cold beer/frosty piss/

    If the beer's Bud, don't bother - there's no difference.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  6. The overly-simplified solution by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Eliminate nuclear and coal power in favor of solar and wind power, and replace the stupid cars with bikes.

    The bicycle as a commuter vehicle works only under ideal conditions and only for the young and fit. You won't be taking a bicycle into Buffalo, NY in mid-winter. You won't be taking a bicycle into Houston, TX in mid-summer.

  7. Re:This is actually really good news by ericrost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Says the AC

  8. Re:What to do with all that waste heat... by Ajehals · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would hope you would parrot the rule saying "Correlation is not causation", or rather I would hope that any other alternatives are also investigated (like suicide or possibly even that a third person did the shooting) sure Its unlikely, but its worth the effort to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

    How this applies to climate change though isn't all that clear. We are sure that temperatures are rising, we are fairly sure that they will continue to rise, and we are inclined to believe that the changes are brought about by our own actions. In that scenario we need to tackle what is apparent whilst also making sure that there are no other explanations.

    Much like you would arrest the potential murderer in your first example immediately and then discount any other possibilities, we should be looking to tackle climate change (by addressing the issues we believe cause it) until we know more one way or the other, what we should not do is close down any other avenues of investigation until we are sure that we have all the information we need, after all if something else turns out to be the culprit (regardless of how unlikely that is) we may need to take some other action, something we couldn't do if we stopped looking.

  9. Re:What "waste heat"? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's really amazing that these basic principals of thermodynamics were all figured out in the early 1800s, but almost 200 years later people still don't get it.

  10. Re:Some people sell their "waste" heat by fabu10u$ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some people sell their "waste" heat
    To heat domestic water, space heating and even to power adsorption chillers which can reduce AC requirements.
    Try selling the US public on steam heat from a nuke. Yes, the coolant loop neither touches the core nor picks up radioactive ions, but see if you can get the unwashed masses to believe they'll be safe with it!
    --
    They say the mind is the first thing to ... uh, what's that saying again?
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:What "waste heat"? by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mi - Wonko and SMNW are both right and know their Carnot cycle, thermodynamics, etc.

    If you want to continue to beat this dead horse, I think your best bet would be to educate yourself about thermodynamics, the Carnot cycle, and what it means to have inifinite temperature reservoirs.

    Just as real world efficiencies can only approach the Carnot cycle, your answers can only approach the previous postings as you learn more about what you are talking about.

  13. Re:paddle wheels in the heat stream by Quadraginta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You need to google "Maxwell's Demon."

  14. Re:Meanwhile Back In Alabama by yusing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Huh. Gosh. See, if we'd invested in a MIX of power instead of depending so heavily on coal and nuclear (which the industry is trying to bump up in significance), we wouldn't be facing such a predicament.

    Germany has wisely seen fit to invest one-seventh of its power money in wind energy. And it has legislated, and many Germnans have benefited for years already, from a solar-energy subsidy.

    Too bad we don't have uncorrupted, uncronyed leadership in the US with the courage and vision to diversify the energy portfolio. Pay now or pay MUCH MUCH more later.

    Nuke-lovers are always griping that wind-energy is too unreliable. Huh, guess what?

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  15. Re:Some people sell their "waste" heat by clovis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even more unlikely, try selling people on the idea of placing nuke plants in large metropolitan areas so they can buy piped in heat from the plant.

    Now if you presented to the American public with the word "free" heat, then we might get something going.

  16. Re:Meanwhile Back In Alabama by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Too bad we don't have uncorrupted, uncronyed leadership in the US with the courage and vision to diversify the energy portfolio

    What do you call the energy futures market?

  17. using this to impeach nukes is profoundly wrong by arete · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using this to impeach nukes is profoundly wrong.

    I'm in favor of alternative, renewable energy sources, but each source has varying degrees to which it is useful in particular situations for technology and production cost reasons. (For example, many places just don't make a good wind farm - and some places make an extremely mediocre and very expensive one.) I think we're going to have a bloom of much better solar at some point, but there's definitely still some room for improvement there.

    I'm also certainly not supporting the current federal administration's energy policy, and I certainly do agree that a greater mix of power would be better.

    However - despite repeatedly building coal fired plants that release literal tons of radioactive (definitively cancer causing) uranium into our air to be sucked up into our lungs - we're so afraid of anything called nuclear that to my knowledge we haven't issued a license to create a new nuclear plant in many years. I think we should wipe that kind of pollution from the map with large and increasing taxes that are specifically based on the pollution released. The only way we're going to do that in the short term would be to use more nuclear, not less, in combination with many other technologies.

    So a lack of capacity is certainly not nuclear technology's fault. A reasonable answer to the GPs fears would be to have nuclear capacity spread out a little more so it wasn't so easily susceptible to drought, ANOTHER reasonable defense would be to have simply more average capacity, and a third defense would be to make plants which are more efficient - which would undoubtedly happen if we compared one we might build now to one decades old. Just look at the efficiency of cars from a similarly long time ago.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot