4 ms·

How big of a problem is this if nuclear is going to be an option as global temperatures rise? Will nuclear be shut down so often in the future that we can't de

How big of a problem is this if nuclear is going to be an option as global temperatures rise? Will nuclear be shut down so often in the future that we can't depend on it? Similar to the argument folks make against solar(it doesn't work at night).

colechristensen 7y ago
Power plants are designed are designed to take useful energy by transmitting heat between something hot and something cold. They can be designed to work for any condition of "cold" and a few degrees doesn't change the ability to design. Problem was these plants were designed for an amount and kind of heat sink which wasn't there for a while. If it became a frequent problem it would be fixed by building alternative heat sinks that worked in more situations. Water cooled reactors run at about 300C, molten salt around 700C or "much higher", and some designs for gas cooled reactors go over 1000C. The weather being a few degrees hotter or even tens of degrees hotter isn't really going to matter if your cooling system is designed to handle it. The minimum temperature gap up there is > 250 degrees, taking a few away isn't going to make anything impossible, but it might make some existing plants increasingly unreliable if there are no investments in new plants or upgrades.
- Maledictus 7y ago
  this is not an engineering problem, it is a "how much are we willing to affect wild life" problem.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    No it's an engineering problem, these plants were designed without cooling towers because it was assumed the direct cooling using river water would be sufficient in all but the rarest cases.
    - flukus 7y ago
      Presumably it's more of a financial/efficiency problem. Pumping water is expensive, less reliable and a heap of maintenance nightmare compared to passive options. You'd avoid it entirely if it was feasible.
      - masklinn 7y ago
        > Presumably it's more of a financial/efficiency problem. It's absolutely a financial decision, but it wasn't a financial problem. Cooling towers are not free but in the grand scheme of building a nuclear plant they're not expensive either (most power stations — including non-nuclear — have cooling towers). And "Direct cooling" is not a passive option, you're still pumping water from and to the river or body of water in order to condense steam in the secondary circuit. What you're not doing is semi-closed cycling of that water through a cooling tower, you're feeding the condenser straight from the body of water, and sending water back into it more or less directly (possibly having gone through a radiator of some sort to shed some heat).
        elproxy 7y ago
        Don’t forget the PR aspect, and political cost. A lot of people in France believe nuclear power is carbon intensive because of the plume coming out of the towers.
  - xorfish 7y ago
    You can always just evaporate the water, reducing the amount of water to around 0.5 m^3/s per GWe.
    - masklinn 7y ago
      That's what's normally done when the body of water is too small, you add a cooling tower, cycle the tertiary coolant through it and compensate for evaporation from the water source. The issue here is that the body of water is "intermediate", so it was large enough the designer felt they didn't need cooling tower as inflow would be sufficient in all but extreme case, except the extreme case is becoming the normal.
nabla9 7y ago
It's a problem only for nuclear reactors that use waters from rivers. Nuclear plants near seas don't have this problem.
- nraynaud 7y ago
  They’ll have a see rise and tsunami problem
  - realusername 7y ago
    I think we're okay with the tsunami risks in France. And sea rise even in the worst scenario isn't much of a threat either.
    - nraynaud 7y ago
      here is the deal: the only recorded tsunamis in France are in the English Channel, where the only French coastal power plants are.

colechristensen 7y ago

Power plants are designed are designed to take useful energy by transmitting heat between something hot and something cold. They can be designed to work for any condition of "cold" and a few degrees doesn't change the ability to design. Problem was these plants were designed for an amount and kind of heat sink which wasn't there for a while. If it became a frequent problem it would be fixed by building alternative heat sinks that worked in more situations. Water cooled reactors run at about 300C, molten salt around 700C or "much higher", and some designs for gas cooled reactors go over 1000C. The weather being a few degrees hotter or even tens of degrees hotter isn't really going to matter if your cooling system is designed to handle it. The minimum temperature gap up there is > 250 degrees, taking a few away isn't going to make anything impossible, but it might make some existing plants increasingly unreliable if there are no investments in new plants or upgrades.

Maledictus 7y ago
this is not an engineering problem, it is a "how much are we willing to affect wild life" problem.
- masklinn 7y ago
  No it's an engineering problem, these plants were designed without cooling towers because it was assumed the direct cooling using river water would be sufficient in all but the rarest cases.
  - flukus 7y ago
    Presumably it's more of a financial/efficiency problem. Pumping water is expensive, less reliable and a heap of maintenance nightmare compared to passive options. You'd avoid it entirely if it was feasible.
    - masklinn 7y ago
      > Presumably it's more of a financial/efficiency problem. It's absolutely a financial decision, but it wasn't a financial problem. Cooling towers are not free but in the grand scheme of building a nuclear plant they're not expensive either (most power stations — including non-nuclear — have cooling towers). And "Direct cooling" is not a passive option, you're still pumping water from and to the river or body of water in order to condense steam in the secondary circuit. What you're not doing is semi-closed cycling of that water through a cooling tower, you're feeding the condenser straight from the body of water, and sending water back into it more or less directly (possibly having gone through a radiator of some sort to shed some heat).
      - elproxy 7y ago
        Don’t forget the PR aspect, and political cost. A lot of people in France believe nuclear power is carbon intensive because of the plume coming out of the towers.
- xorfish 7y ago
  You can always just evaporate the water, reducing the amount of water to around 0.5 m^3/s per GWe.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    That's what's normally done when the body of water is too small, you add a cooling tower, cycle the tertiary coolant through it and compensate for evaporation from the water source. The issue here is that the body of water is "intermediate", so it was large enough the designer felt they didn't need cooling tower as inflow would be sufficient in all but extreme case, except the extreme case is becoming the normal.

nabla9 7y ago

It's a problem only for nuclear reactors that use waters from rivers. Nuclear plants near seas don't have this problem.

nraynaud 7y ago
They’ll have a see rise and tsunami problem
- realusername 7y ago
  I think we're okay with the tsunami risks in France. And sea rise even in the worst scenario isn't much of a threat either.
  - nraynaud 7y ago
    here is the deal: the only recorded tsunamis in France are in the English Channel, where the only French coastal power plants are.