Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Hot Water: The Effects of Even Modern Nuke Plants On Water

Posted by Unknown on from the fish-hate-people dept.

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). "

14 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting definition of "modern" by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering that we're finally seeing liquid fueled molten salt reactors built (in China) based on cutting edge state-of-the-1960s technology can we stop calling pressurized water and boiling water reactors "modern"?

    1. Re:Interesting definition of "modern" by sl3xd · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:Interesting definition of "modern" by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:Interesting definition of "modern" by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2, 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 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.

    4. Re:Interesting definition of "modern" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. Dumb article by phayes · · 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?

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  3. Magical water by Applekid · · Score: 1, 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?

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:Magical water by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The aren't worried about water being removed from the environment, they're worried about it being removed from the ecosystem (or changing the ecosystem by heating the water around the plant). It's great that the water doesn't disappear and re-enters the water cycle, but that isn't any consolation to the people and creatures who were relying on that water downstream.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Should read "power plants", not "nuclear plants" by Burdell · · 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.

  5. Re:Kill the planet for energy by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why else do you think we're seeing a massive "positive" publicity campaign to warm our hearts towards Hyrdraulic Fracturing? Pennsylvania will be sorry... They'll get a few thousand quick and short-term high paying jobs. Peoples real estate values in some areas will go up drastically. High school kids with no education will be making 6 figures and then spending themselves into a hole. Then the boom will end. Property values will drop, unemployment, local communities will be stuck holding the bag while the energy companies will skip town to the next boom.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  6. Doesn't matter by sycodon · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Doesn't matter by Anthony+Mouse · · 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.

    2. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like them.

  7. Re:There are other options I guess by robot256 · · Score: 4, 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.