Slashdot Mirror
Europe's Heatwave is Forcing Nuclear Power Plants To Shut Down (qz.com)
Europe's heatwave -- which led to wildfires in Greece and Sweden, droughts in central and northern parts, and made the normally green UK look brown from space -- is forcing nuclear plants to shut down or curtail the amount of power they produce, local media reports. From a report: French utility EDF shut four reactors at three power plants on Saturday, Swedish utility Vattenfall shut one of two reactors at a power plant earlier last week, and nuclear plants in Finland, Germany, and Switzerland have cut back the amount of power they produce. Thermal power plants, such as nuclear or coal, use high-temperature steam to turn turbines, which convert heat energy into electricity. In the process, the steam's temperature falls, so it can no longer be used to move the turbine again. [...] Europe's heatwave, however, hasn't just increased air temperatures but also water temperatures.
So why did they have to shut down the reactors?
The problem with climate change isn't so much as our planet breaking but everything we depend on breaking. Somewhat wacky that nuclear reactors aren't designed to handle this heat but then again I would have never imagined the crazy kind of temperatures Europe has skyrocketed up to. So one has to wonder, what other stuff is going to break?
N/T
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
On the "bright" side, there's a lot of sun right now for the PV panels!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Nuke plants mostly perform well in hot weather and carry the system when other sources are struggling. A few reactors have to cut back due to heat limits on cooling water. The total percentage of nuclear reduction across the board is less than 10%. Meanwhile, wind power during the recent heat wave was down over 80%. Nuclear was carrying the load. Particularly it was critical in late afternoon and evening when solar fades. There were times when wind production during these critical times dropped below 1% of demand.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/europes-power-prices-rise-as-heat-wave-saps-wind-from-turbines
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-01/scorching-start-to-august-set-to-test-europe-s-power-system
It's a terrible summary.
The problem is that the water is chilled... but it's chilled by running it through colder water, usually pulled from a lake or a stream. Usually this isn't a problem, because the waste heat doesn't disrupt the ecosystem too much.
Right now, however, the environment is so warm that adding the waste heat would push temperatures above acceptable levels, killing the local ecosystem. Instead, the reactors are shut down to minimize the amount of heat they have to dissipate.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
From TFA, the reason why the reactors were shut down (which wasn't included in the summary) is:
Yeah, I know that reading TFA is no longer cool on Slashdot, but someone has to help out the editors. :P
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Poor design. All over the world there are nuclear plants operating just fine in hot tropical and subtropical climates, including the USA. Never has been a problem. So the Euros are doing something wrong with their designs.
Almost all the European nukes are running just fine, full output. Only a few have cut back due to discharge heat limits.
wrong,
it's just done out of concern for causing too much heating in the water around the plant, limiting environmental damage. the plants could work fine even if temperature were higher.
this isn't even that newsworthy, happens some years.
"No longer cool?" I've been on Slashdot and it sure seems to me that most people I've talked to here never read past the second sentence of the summary, much less the article.
Sometimes it's frustrating, sometimes it's fun when we have this exchange:
MD Solar: Fucking Trump screwing everything up again.
Me: The first sentence of the summary is "In 2015, the TSA stripped searched 4,800 people". Can you read the first two words? I didn't know Trump was running the TSA in 2015.
You have a strange idea of "efficiency".
Nuclear reactors don't have a heat pump, what would be the purpose?
I would love to know the power consumption of a nuclear facility's coolant pumps.
In relation to the power a plant produces: zero.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You should of learned in high school physics
And you should've learned in elementary school how contractions work.
Waste heat from power plants can be a HUGE problem to local ecosystems. There's rivers in the US where power plants have raised the water temperature 20 degrees and essentially displaced the entire habitat.
Steam generation is 19th century technology that's just plain awful in low water or high temperature areas. We've got power plants in the western US that use more water than the entire local population, water that's just pumped into the atmosphere rather than supporting the local ecosystem. Solar and storage are at the point where we can stop using this ancient technology, it's long since time that steam generation should be abandoned in any area where water is at a premium.
An interesting fact is that heat pumps (like home air conditioners, refrigerators, or nuclear power plants) are actually in the range of 200% to 600% efficient, apparently violating that wonderful law
No system and process in over 100% efficient. If you compare different properties of different processes, you aren't truly comparing efficiency. Heat pump efficiency is how efficient it is at moving heat. How much energy is put in, how much heat is moved. For electric heat, it is how much heat is transformed or released from a different energy form to heat.
Nuclear steam cycles are not heat pumps because the heat energy is primarily converted to mechanical energy. Yes, there are heat moving elements of the steam cycle, which are similar in principle to heat pump cycles.
There's rivers in the US where power plants have raised the water temperature 20 degrees and essentially displaced the entire habitat.
An exaggeration. But do you know how much habitat Hydro power has displaced by comparison?
Right now, however, the environment is so warm that adding the waste heat would push temperatures above acceptable levels, killing the local ecosystem.
Something that is in fact already happening
" You should of learned in high school "
Have. They also teach that in high school.
Its a German and EU political and environmental problem. eg Thermal pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The cooling water drawn from rivers, lakes, or seas will get more warm in hooter weather as more cooling water is needed.
German laws put limits on how hot cooling water can be when returned to such "rivers, lakes, or seas".
Laws limited the exisiting cooling engineering.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Thereby violating the third law of thermodynamics. You should of learned in high school physics perpetual energy machines dont work, Silly child.
It's not a perpetual energy machine, the input energy comes from the radioactive decay of Uranium, not from the water.
I stole this Sig
It's a terrible summary.
The problem is that the water is chilled... but it's chilled by running it through colder water, usually pulled from a lake or a stream. Usually this isn't a problem, because the waste heat doesn't disrupt the ecosystem too much.
Right now, however, the environment is so warm that adding the waste heat would push temperatures above acceptable levels, killing the local ecosystem. Instead, the reactors are shut down to minimize the amount of heat they have to dissipate.
If true that's a pretty critical point.
It implies the Nuclear plants could be run in these temperatures if it were really critical, they're just shutting them down because there are other power sources with fewer side effects.
I stole this Sig
Technical nitpick: this is about heat sink water, not coolant. The too-warm heat sink problem is why ocean water is a preferred heat sink for thermal plants. This affects ALL thermal power plants and has nothing especially to do with nuclear.
The cooling water drawn from rivers, lakes, or seas will get more warm in hooter weather as more cooling water is needed.
This is presumably weather so warm that women take off their tops.
Solar wins again, fools.
Waste thermal-plant heat can be directed for useful purposes also, such as keeping Arctic towns warm. The biggest voting bloc in favor of nuclear plants in Florida is manatees, which flock to them in winter to bask in the warm water.
When you say "chill the water", what that inevitably means is putting the heat somewhere else. You can't magic it away, it has to go somewhere, and you have to build some kind of heat exchanger that gets it there.
So where would you put the heat? The obvious answer is the atmosphere, but consider that this was an option open to engineers when they designed the plant. They *could* have condensed the turbine working fluid by exchanging the heat with the atmosphere like the air conditioner in your house, which demonstrates that it is physically possible to do. But they rejected this approach for a good reason.
That reason is likely that the quantities of heat involved are considerably greater than those involved with cooling your house. They chose to put the heat into water because (a) water has over 4x the heat capacity of dry air on a mass basis and (b) water is 1000x denser than air. For any given level of efficiency, your air cooling device would have to be thousands of times larger.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
" It's even one of the most common sources of power in the universe! Except on Earth, because of leftards."
Did you actually use the average properties of the universe as an, um, 'data', point about what sources terrestrial electricity production should use? Because 'the universe' is so representative of conditions on earth in other respects? Is having an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere, rather than an almost complete vacuum also a liberal conspiracy?
Plus, I think that you might have been a trifle sloppy lumping fission and fusion together under 'nuclear'. Not only is fission power something of an aberration on a universal scale(supplies of elements heavy enough are pretty scarce; and found more or less exclusively as byproducts of stars that did a rather heroic amount of fusion before they got to that step); the industry-standard fusion generator configuration is an open-reactor gravity contained design; not one of the oddball ultra-compact curiosities..
In fact, if you venture outside during the day you can see the one we already have installed and (mostly uneventfully) supply most of earth's energy requirements...
Seriously, NuScale's new SMRs can actually run without water just using an air-based cooling tower.
Of course, it is far better to not and instead use the waste heat to desalinate water.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well technically he's right. If Europe starts to experience 1,000 degree temperatures, those cores will have a tough time getting cooled down. Not sure anyone will care, but, you know ...
Given that the average person generates 1kw of heat/hour, adding millions of new citizens to Europe each year must be the equivalent of adding a nuclear reactors all over the continent.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
In fact, if you venture outside during the day you can see the one we already have installed and (mostly uneventfully) supply most of earth's energy requirements...
Maybe you should stop turning it off for half of every fucking day ...
A person does not dissipate 1000 W of energy. Speaking of "W per hour" of heat has no sense, watts are already "energy over time". European population is decreasing.
It's true that they created the lake for the nuke plant, but to be fair they also have a 1MW hydro plant installed there as well. That's half of the Hoover Dam's capacity - nothing to sneeze at!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"Europe's Heatwave is Forcing Coal Power Plants To Shut Down" is just as valid for the title, but nuclear is so much more click-baity...
And the reason they are being shut down is to avoid pumping too much waste heat into the environment, since that would be bad for the ecosystem. It's not some kind of generator failure we should all lose sleep over.
How is a law preventing damage to the ecosystem of the rivers is a "political problem"?
The upside of this weather is that solar energy production has gone up massively. July boosted my record month to 15% over the previous record getting more than 20% more than my average july month.
... is going to save us from global warming. ...
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Your fridge is a heat pump. ... an engineer would know that.
A power plant using a steam turbine is not
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"Seriously, why not just chill the water?"
They do. The massive towers around the plant are cooling towers. :-)
But even those don't cool the water enough to be able to send it back to the river without killing all the fauna, because the river is already hot and also it doesn't have enough water in the first place.
In winter, the river is frozen and they can't use them either.
And still they want us to believe that they can work around the clock, unlike solar and wind.
100W, not 1000. And it's only a threat to life in rivers if they live in them, and even given the propensity to build on floodplains, that isn't really happening.
High temperature molten salt solar is quickly developing into an excellent base-load power option. We know that the sun will be shining in the future or we'd have much bigger problems.
It looks awesome too!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
So, if a nuke plant is offline it's available,
Yes, because you could restart it whenever you would like simply by pushing a (metaphorical) button.
Germany simply legally choose not to, in order to avoid dumping too much waste heat in the lake and rivers which are used to cool the loop.
But if Germany decided to change that law (or to ignore it due to an emergency), there are no technical limitation in restarting the plant (well, nit-picking : to actually *ramp up the output back to full capacity*, it's not really completely shut down)
but if a wind tower if offline it isn't. Got it.
Because no matter how much you would like, you can't choose to restart the wind at a button press.
Even if Germany wanted to restart the plant, there's the technical problem that wind is still missing.
Same also with hydro : you can't just magically refill the lake at a button press if the water level is low...
(...that is, except for a few weird projects that would like to use excess solar power to pump water back into the lake as type of storage. Basically turning the hydrodam into a giant gravity-based rechargeable battery)
Luckily, the type of weather that is bad for nuclear, wind and hydro, happens to be the type of weather that is optimal for solar : lots of sun, so no technical limitation for those !
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I see that THEY got to you ...
"Laws limited the exisiting cooling engineering."
The laws impose restrictions, but not a limit it in the sense that there is no way around by adding more money; ie: build water ponds where the heat is allowed to rise much higher temperatures (without being returned to a river).
That would make the initial cost of building the plant less appealing by building upfront for a scenario that hasn't occurred yet.
It has now.
This is europe, we do that even in the cold weather.
Duh, it's the same as operating a cooling fan from part of the generated power.
rahvin112 made a claim. You denied it, but didn't provide any evidence. I did a quick google and found http://iopscience.iop.org/arti... which suggests a 10C rise, which is in the region of 20f.
You then tried some whataboutism in the hope that no-one would bother to validate your claim and start thinking about hydro power instead, even though rahvin112 was suggesting solar+storage as the alternative.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So the Euros are doing something wrong with their designs.
Nothing wrong with any designs. Designs have conditions on them, when those conditions are breached your design project needs to take measures.
You should try suddenly freezing your hot tropical nuclear reactors and see how long they last.
rahvin112 made a claim. You denied it, but didn't provide any evidence. I did a quick google and found http://iopscience.iop.org/arti... which suggests a 10C rise, which is in the region of 20f.
You then tried some whataboutism in the hope that no-one would bother to validate your claim and start thinking about hydro power instead, even though rahvin112 was suggesting solar+storage as the alternative.
That link does not show that the heating 'displaced the entire habitat', which was the claim. He made the claim, if he can back it up he should respond with the source. I say its total bullshit.
No, the watt is a unit of instantaneous power. Energy over time is measured in watt-hours (Wh).
For example, a heater that produces 1000W of heat running for 1 hour would produce 1000Wh of heat energy.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Great fishing in warm waters depends on the what you're fishing for. American bass (which are actually sunfish) are warm water species and do well in unnaturally warm waters. Trout, salmon, northern pike, and walleye are cool water species which often can't survive elevated temperatures.
Some cool water game fish are warm tolerant, others not. The most important game fish of Europe are trout and salmon, which die when exposed to warm water. There are fishing subcultures that go after "coarse fish" (which pretty much means anything not a salmon or trout), but I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea to wipe out trout to make better habitat for carp.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I think it was less a comment about physics but more of a political potshot at Europe's current immigrant and refugee politics/crysis.
Just think of all the free energy we could get if only we could find a way to make use of the friction your mouth generates on all those cocks.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Okay. And your whataboutism, care to defend that?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's not often we get a chance to see the GW Denier trolls and the "nuclear will solve every problem" trolls all partying together on the same page.
This is a real treat.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Living at the Rhine River well before any thermal power plants, we already see dead fishes (thymallus and trouts) here.
The watt is defined as J / s, which is energy / time. In fact, as you say yourself, to obtain an amount of energy you have to multiply by time.
I know, I know.
Not a design issue, it's a "lets not cook the fish" issue.
HAHA! Got me. I'm only off by 3 orders of magnitude, though - so there's that.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yeaaup, I'm off by 1000. Good enough for government work.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So one has to wonder, what other stuff is going to break?
If you live in Europe you had better hope the Gulf Stream isn't one of the things that "breaks". If that happens just remember that the northern parts of the USA are roughly the latitude of Spain. The weather would get... interesting to say the least.
Poor design. All over the world there are nuclear plants operating just fine in hot tropical and subtropical climates, including the USA. Never has been a problem. So the Euros are doing something wrong with their designs.
Almost all the European nukes are running just fine, full output. Only a few have cut back due to discharge heat limits.
Oh. So, it's not an OMG problem?
I design HVAC systems (among other things) for a living.
For an average office worker we assume about 250 btuh (75 watts±) of sensible heat and 200 btuh (60 watts±) of latent heat (evaporating sweat) for a total of a little less than 135 watts.
For heavy exercise, about 700 btuh (210 watts±) of sensible heat and 1100 btuh (320 watts±) of latent heat, for a total of about 530 watts per person.
There is no whataboutism there. The fact that the link doesn't even scientifically show what the other poster claimed is where the bullshit is. It's taking other data, painting it together, and claiming it is proof. There were no readings, there was no long-term study, hell there wasn't even a short-term study. The entire thing boiled down to "temperature is the cause" and "ecosystem disruption" by painting the two together to paint a story and not even looking for an actual cause.
Problem: Their own data shows that fish species with low tolerances to higher temperatures aren't having drop-offs in their population. Further, F&W agencies show that populations are high or within norms, except in cases where other factors come into play. Those other factors? Mainly people doing stupid things, like some farmer dumping shit on the fields and failing to plow it under causing a toxic bloom high enough to kill, but not enough to be noticeable outside of lab tests. Or a parasitic population bloom, caused by a variety of other factors like "boom years" with high populations and spawned populations being eaten by other fish creating less diversity in the offspring - aka lower resistances.
Good example from right here in my own neck of the woods. We have a serious problem with lamprey eels in the great lakes killing fish. We also have a serious problem with them traveling further up river every year and causing serious problems with fish spawning, breeding, and habitat destruction due to the rot of the fish in the river. Lamprey's have an extremely low tolerance to high temperatures, but this causes no impact to them in the river ecosystems which means traps and lampricide are an absolute requirement, despite the impact that lampricide has on other fish populations. The absolute destruction they cause is unbelievable and they can wipe out the entire river population in an area then travel further up or downstream continuing it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Did you read the article? Did you notice how it said oxygen starvation? Notice the picture? Notice how far the river is out from the normal "width" of it? Notice all those rocks which would be in the shallows and add to oxygenation? So we have no rain, which lowers the river, we have dredging to deepen the river. This makes a slow moving river with low oxygenation now. Add in that fertilizer runoff has been a serious problem for decades, and fertilizer causes massive lower end booms in population which use oxygen like crazy, and suddenly you have fish dying.
Seriously, just think a little bit. The problem is far simpler then "temperatures causing it" and requires a far more complex solution because of what 400 years of what Germany has done to the rivers "flow" all on it's own. The easiest one would be adding chops to add oxygen to the river, which are similar to aquarium air pumps.
Om, nomnomnom...
I meant that the human body generates about 100w/heat an hour. Even been in crowded room? It gets quite hot rapidly. Add a few million new residents, and it's like installing patio heaters all over the place.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
it's just done out of concern for causing too much heating in the water around the plant, limiting environmental damage. the plants could work fine even if temperature were higher.
Yes, that is generally the concern with nuclear plants... that they will cause death. And death of stuff in rivers has health repercussions for humans.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, the stuff about hydro power.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Fish and plant life are adapted to certain temperatures, for example rainbow trout and it's surrounding ecosystem are dependent on cold waters (below 50 degrees IIRC), you raise that temperature above 50F and the rainbow trout cannot simply survive in the waterway (the higher temp causes their metabolism to increase and for them to burn more calories than they can eat) along with many of the supporting plant life and even some of the waterborne insects and other food sources for the fish. Almost all aquatic ecosystems have strict temperature dependencies that the life in them depend on.
Installing a power plant along a river that raises the water 20F in such a situation would create a deadzone in the river where the native ecosystem can't survive, though they are typically recolonized by a different ecosystem, for example using the rainbow trout example above, the rainbow would be displaced by brown trout, bass and other warm water fish. But the big problem is this zone in the river creates a break that doesn't allow the rainbow to properly migrate and any rainbow that enter this part of the river will die if they remain.
As someone else already pointed out, 20F rise in temperature is the point where the EPA regulations kick in. But continue on with your whataboutism and baseless denial. Wasteheat can be a very serious problem.
This is thermodynamics from a heat flow perspective, not an energy generation one.
Let's walk through this.
1. Water cannot be used to cool the plant because it is too warm. Warm water cannot carry enough heat away from the reactor.
2. The proposed solution is to cool the water so it can be used.
3. A giant heat pump will remove heat from the water and reject it to the air. This heat pump needs to carry more than the heat from the reactor.
4. This would require the construction of cooling towers, which evaporate water to carry the heat away.
5. The increased air temperature would also impose limits on the efficiency of this system. The hotter the air gets, the harder it gets to cool the reactor. Eventually you need to shut down the reactor because your cooling system cant keep up. Or you keep building more cooling towers.
6. As the cost of this rube goldberg solution increases, you re-discover why nuke plants are stationed near large sources of water - Rejecting heat to the air is inefficient.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Sartre says anyone claiming they are forced to do things is in bad faith
The energy required to cool that volume of water makes the nuke plant pointless.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Still not a whataboutism thing. Sadly this is the state of academic review these days, where people correlate information that's outside of their field of expertise and try to present it as fact.
Om, nomnomnom...
rather silly considering the greater amount of death that say coal and oil fired plants cause.
Fortunately, cases where there is a significant impact from nuclear plants are rare and affect a small area for a short duration. Its quite easy to manage as well. Its not a serious problem.
No idea why you cite a fake news site, when you can get the correct numbers by using google: https://energy-charts.de/power...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But do you know how much habitat Hydro power has displaced by comparison?
Zero?
Because the hydroplants are still full with fish?
Why do you compare apples with stones is beyond me.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The main problem is not the temperature per se but the oxygen level.
Higher water temperature mens lower oxygen, the fishes simply suffocate.
In some parts of Germany we are picking out fishes by the tons each day. Around Cologne, e.g.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
cases where there is a significant impact from nuclear plants are rare and affect a small area for a short duration.
Exactly, because we shut the plants down.
Its quite easy to manage as well. Its not a serious problem.
Fully true, because we shut the plants down.
I still don't get what your ranting point is ....
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Your logical fallacy is "false dichotomy".
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Heh, I LOLed.
Also, found the Skin Horse reader.
When lakes are filled for hyrdopower, vast animal and plant habitats are destroyed, even native water life is impacted. Not only are animal habitats destroyed, but many animals themselves die. Even human habitats have been destroyed, displacing entire towns.
Its not a rant, it puts thing in perspective. If you don't like viewing things in perspective, you can ignore.
Only nuclear gets such a totally irrational and visceral fear reaction from the general public though.
There's nothing irrational about being concerned about the risk of rendering areas uninhabitable on human timescales. And the public would never have accepted nuclear power except for the lie about it being "too cheap to meter", which was never going to happen because of the risk factors.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I simply don't understand your perspective. That is all. ... so again: what is your point you want to make?
The summary clearly stated that Germany (and Swizerland) only power down a few plants and don't completely shut off any.
And you claim the summary is wrong: because you don't see the 5% load dip
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, and?
That is a rather minour inconvenience in relation e.g. of lumbering a few woods, that you do all the time, and putting farms there.
Hint: a lake is a habitate, too. There is nothing lost, bottom line you could argue it it is a net gain.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And you claim the summary is wrong: because you don't see the 5% load dip ..
Where did I claim that?
Good, then lets not get all worked up about a, occasional, rare, temporary and relatively much smaller impact on water temperature.
not at all, U.S. nuke plants are way less damaging than coal and oil plants. provable fact.
It is not small.
Many plants reduced their power output by ~10%
It is temporary, yes, likely 4 to 6 weeks.
relatively much smaller impact on water temperature.
The relevant rivers have hard set maximum temperatures like 26C or 28C, if that temperature is reached the plant will shut down completely.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In your first post to this thread.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, not many, very few.
In your first post to this thread.
You must be seeing things that don't exist. Doesn't surprise me.