Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Drought could force nuclear plant shutdowns in the U.S.

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Drought could force nuclear plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Unread postby Magus » Wed 23 Jan 2008, 23:04:02

Thought that some of you might find this interesting. Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns *Snip*
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y MITCH WEISS, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago
LAKE NORMAN, N.C. - Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.

Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities may be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies.

Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer. "Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. "You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants." He added: "This is becoming a crisis."
I don't think it's really necessary for me point out how bad this is.

If oil prices spike this summer as some of us here predict, and even a portion of the U.S. nuclear power generation is brought offline... :roll:
Last edited by Magus on Wed 23 Jan 2008, 23:43:52, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Magus
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Earth

Re: Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Unread postby lawnchair » Wed 23 Jan 2008, 23:34:05

Coal-fired plants have to dump waste heat in exactly the same ways at pretty much the same rate per MWh. Fewer of them have evaporative cooling towers because they're a little easier to get sited on populated rivers/lakes/oceans. But, anywhere that a drought is going to shutdown a nuke, it would equally shut down a coal plant.
At 1% annual growth, human bodies will incorporate every gram in the observable universe in approximately 10,170 years.
User avatar
lawnchair
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Unread postby Andy » Thu 24 Jan 2008, 10:54:21

The alternative is not necessarily more coal Lawnchair. It could be CC nat gas that dumps almost half as much heat and would thus be less affected or thinking advanced strategy, fuel cell/gas turbine hybrids that use no cooling water. We need to think outside the box here.It is not nuke, coal or nothing.
For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4
User avatar
Andy
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Unread postby thor » Thu 24 Jan 2008, 13:42:17

Concentrated solar power doesn't have this problem, neither wind turbines. :razz:
User avatar
thor
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Unread postby efarmer » Thu 24 Jan 2008, 14:59:34

I was concerned until you turned your magnificent idea machine
loose on this one pstarr. Now I can go back to work on my cold
fusion problem. It's so cold today, if I fall asleep in my chair my
buns will fuse right to the cushion.

That feller biting the statue of Liberty on your avatar looks familiar,
was he with Monty Python at one time?
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Unread postby Concerned » Thu 24 Jan 2008, 16:12:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thor', 'C')oncentrated solar power doesn't have this problem, neither wind turbines. :razz:



For solar too bad the sun don't shine 24 hours in the day all year at a high intensity.

For wind too bad the wind don't blow all day all year at a constant ongoing rate.

But I think you are correct that we have alternatives and we are all saved from our energy predicament. Want to come shopping with me?
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
User avatar
Concerned
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Unread postby Concerned » Thu 24 Jan 2008, 16:15:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lawnchair', 'C')oal-fired plants have to dump waste heat in exactly the same ways at pretty much the same rate per MWh. Fewer of them have evaporative cooling towers because they're a little easier to get sited on populated rivers/lakes/oceans. But, anywhere that a drought is going to shutdown a nuke, it would equally shut down a coal plant.



True.

Thinking in the safety / danger sphere if something went wrong when a coal or nuclear plant had to be shut down due to lack of cooling...

Which one would you rather live close to?
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
User avatar
Concerned
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Unread postby Starvid » Thu 24 Jan 2008, 18:56:36

The anti-nuclear media strikes again. This is not a nuke problem, it's a steam plant problem, being just as big a problem for coal or biomass as for nuclear.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

Re: Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Unread postby Starvid » Thu 24 Jan 2008, 18:59:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lawnchair', 'C')oal-fired plants have to dump waste heat in exactly the same ways at pretty much the same rate per MWh. Fewer of them have evaporative cooling towers because they're a little easier to get sited on populated rivers/lakes/oceans. But, anywhere that a drought is going to shutdown a nuke, it would equally shut down a coal plant.



True.

Thinking in the safety / danger sphere if something went wrong when a coal or nuclear plant had to be shut down due to lack of cooling...

Which one would you rather live close to?

The antinuclear PO.com posters strike again.

It would be the same. If you didn't have enough cooling water for a nuke (or a coal) you would gradually reduce output as the amount of available cooling water fell.

Of course, in a pinch you could get just as much water as you would ever need, with the only adverse affect being that you would discharge too hot water into the river.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top


Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron