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.

34 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. We care about climate change by foxalopex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:We care about climate change by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      Nuclear reactors can handle high temps just fine. Only in places where there is limited cooling water and cooling releases rise above local environmental limits are they cut back.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

      In Germany, recently, nuclear was a steady producer while wind was barely producing.

      https://www.energy-charts.de/p...

    2. Re:We care about climate change by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Germany produces 3 times more power from wind than from nuclear. Moron ... Which is pretty clearly visible on your cherry picked graph.

      You miss the point. Germany has stupidly shut down nuclear plants, but nuclear is still available when needed, unlike wind. One chooses charts to illustrate points, I chose one illustrating what is happening during a heat wave. Sorry you don't like that.

      For the heat wave weeks, nuclear generated more than wind. Even with 58 GW installed wind vs 9.5 GW installed nuclear.

      https://www.energy-charts.de/e...
      https://www.energy-charts.de/e...
      https://www.energy-charts.de/e...
      https://www.energy-charts.de/e...

    3. Re:We care about climate change by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      You miss the point. Germany has stupidly shut down nuclear plants, but nuclear is still available when needed, unlike wind.

      ....except when it isn't, which is what this article is about. Just saying.

      But they were available. If you look deeper than headlines, you might realize such. I even provided links to make it easy for folks like you.

    4. Re:We care about climate change by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Korea is even started up nukes that were scheduled to be down for maintenance to help during their heat wave.

      http://www.world-nuclear-news....

    5. Re:We care about climate change by Uecker · · Score: 2

      It is not a terrible deep insight that wind is intermittent power source. It is also not new that there is less wind in the summer. On the other hand, there is more solar and the total production from renewables is surprisingly stable: https://www.energy-charts.de/r... Always about 35% which in summary is much more than nuclear.

      Your charts highlight another point: The renewables clearly cut into consumption of coal and lignite. This is very good.

      And there is another thing to learn: Nuclear is always running at the same level. This is related to a disadvantage of nuclear: It can *only* be used for baseload.Technically, it might be possible to do load following, but that makes the economics of nuclear even worse as you have very high investments you need to recover. On the one hand, this makes it very unattractive to have a lof of nuclear in a modern grid with intermittent power sources. On the other hand, you cannot use only nuclear because of demand side changes. So there is no real long-term use case for nuclear anymore.

    6. Re:We care about climate change by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      You miss the point. Germany has stupidly shut down nuclear plants, but nuclear is still available when needed, unlike wind.
      I think you miss the point. German population fought to get rid of nuclear power since 50 years. When the red/green government under Schroeder finally planned the exit, we all were happy.
      Then came Merkel and canceled the exit.
      Then came Fukushima and Merkel reintroduced the exit.

      There is nothing stupid in that.

      Why you pick cherry picked graphs to prove a point which you don't have, is beyond me.
      Over the course of a year nuclear produces about 10% of our power, wind about 30% and renewables in total over 40%.

      For the heat wave weeks, nuclear generated more than wind.
      Yes, because Germany is one of the few European countries that does not need to shut down nuclear power plants at the moment ... due to relatively high water in the rivers.

      Look at France on the other hand, 65% of all power comes from nukes ... they will probably shut down 20% - 30% of them during August ... and buy coal power on the European market. So much for your beloved nuclear power.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:We care about climate change by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Nuclear production has reduced by less than 1GW in Germany as a result of this. In the meantime the daily cycle from solar goes from 28GW to 0. Wind was 9GW 3 days ago and 2GW the day before that.

      I think we'll be just fine with things "breaking".

  2. Re:No cooling towers? by barc0001 · · Score: 2

    Cooling towers don't cool the water enough. Need more cooling tower surface area, or a larger reservoir to dump the warmed water back into.

  3. I thought nuclear power was the answer to AGW? by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I thought nuclear power was the answer to AGW? by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Solar PV output drops with heat.
      https://energytransition.org/2...

      One reason the situation wasnâ(TM)t worse in Germany, of course, was the large number of solar arrays. But even their output is negatively impacted during heat waves; efficiency drops by up to 0.5 percent per degree Celsius â" and the panel temperature counts, not the air. Fortunately, temperatures in Germany still do not rise as much as they do in Spain, where the effect was greater.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:I thought nuclear power was the answer to AGW? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Solar PV output drops with heat.
      And why is that relevant when we now have 18h sun every day since 10 weeks?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Re:uhhh cool the water then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  5. Re:uhhh cool the water then? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  6. Reason why reactors were shut down by Morgaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA, the reason why the reactors were shut down (which wasn't included in the summary) is:

    Europe's heatwave, however, hasn't just increased air temperatures but also water temperatures. Regulations protecting wildlife mean that the usual water sources drawn on by nuclear plants cannot always be used for cooling, leading to shutdowns. It's not the first time this has happened: Heatwaves forced nuclear shutdowns or curtailments across Europe in 2003, 2006, and 2015.

    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
    1. Re:Reason why reactors were shut down by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From TFA, the reason why the reactors were shut down (which wasn't included in the summary) is:

      Europe's heatwave, however, hasn't just increased air temperatures but also water temperatures. Regulations protecting wildlife mean that the usual water sources drawn on by nuclear plants cannot always be used for cooling, leading to shutdowns. It's not the first time this has happened: Heatwaves forced nuclear shutdowns or curtailments across Europe in 2003, 2006, and 2015.

      Yeah, I know that reading TFA is no longer cool on Slashdot, but someone has to help out the editors. :P

      At /., accuracy and completeness isn't as important as the narrative.

  7. Re:Poor design. It's not my problem by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Poor design. It's not my problem by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    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.

  9. No longer? I've been here ten years by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    "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.

  10. Re: uhhh cool the water then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You should of learned in high school physics

    And you should've learned in elementary school how contractions work.

  11. Re:uhhh cool the water then? by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:uhhh cool the water then? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  13. Re:uhhh cool the water then? by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2

    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

  14. Re: uhhh cool the water then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    " You should of learned in high school "

    Have. They also teach that in high school.

  15. Re: uhhh cool the water then? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

    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"
  16. Re: uhhh cool the water then? by quantaman · · Score: 2

    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
  17. Re: uhhh cool the water then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  18. Re:uhhh cool the water then? by hey! · · Score: 2

    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.
  19. Re: uhhh cool the water then? by peppepz · · Score: 2

    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.

  20. Lousy article by johannesg · · Score: 2

    "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.

  21. Re: uhhh cool the water then? by Uecker · · Score: 2

    How is a law preventing damage to the ecosystem of the rivers is a "political problem"?

  22. Re: No cooling towers? by q_e_t · · Score: 2

    Cooling towers are used in many plants, nuclear and coal, and seem to work.

  23. Re: uhhh cool the water then? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is europe, we do that even in the cold weather.

  24. Re: uhhh cool the water then? by jbengt · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.