8 ms·

I think this is a non-problem. At least for France and Germany, peak electricity consumption is in winter, because electric heating is much more common (and nee

by mrb 7y ago

I think this is a non-problem. At least for France and Germany, peak electricity consumption is in winter, because electric heating is much more common (and needed!) than air conditioning. This seasonal surplus is such that nuclear power plants actually have to reduce their power output in summer. Here is a chart showing a ±30% seasonal variation in nuclear electricity production: https://jancovici.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/elec-mensuelle-nuke-France.jpg https://jancovici.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/elec-mensue...

flukus 7y ago
Even if it's a non-problem now it will be a growing one in future and there are a few problems here. Nuclear power makes up 70% of France's electricity, so even if they normally turn off/down some reactors it will become a huge problem if they have to turn many of them off. It's also much easier to plan for a seasonal variance then a weather one, they get much less notification of when rivers will be too hot and when they will cool down again is unpredictable. Finally it undermines the economics of nuclear power, they already take decades to recoup the build cost, if they even can against renewables in future, being able to run even less pushes that further out. Most importantly it's a warning to other countries considering nuclear, especially equatorial ones where nuclear power is almost non-existent.
- lxmorj 7y ago
  Isn't this just a design problem? Surely the temperature we're trying to reduce is much, much higher than "summer river" temps. Seems like a higher flow rate and/or a better heat exchanger would fix this.
  - fhars 7y ago
    How would a more efficient heat exchanger reduce the resulting temperatures of the river water used to dumps the heat? A river full of dead fish is even worse PR than long term radiation danger.
  - ohyes 7y ago
    This is specifically a problem with building a nuclear power plant on too small a body of water. The ocean doesn’t have this problem. Neither would the Great Lakes.
    - littlestymaar 7y ago
      Actually it's a problem that arises when you build a nuclear plant next to an intermediate body of water. When the river is too small (or irregular, like the Loire) you build cooling towers on your plant, and you are fine (or at least, you need much more extreme weather conditions to have issues). The problem with plants built on the Rhône is that there is usually enough water in the river for direct cooling, so the designers didn't bother with a cooling tower[1]. But when the water flow is low, you need to stop the plant. [1]not all of them though, in some cases the Rhône's flow wasn't enough for direct cooling and they went with cooling towers: The Cruas-Meysse plant has cooling towers and it's not affected by the current heatwave. Also, the Bugey and Tricastin plants have a mix of both (2 reactors with direct cooling and two with cooling towers) and only the reactors with direct cooling are affected.
      - elproxy 7y ago
        I thought the cooling towers at Tricastin were only for the fuel enrichment part
  - elproxy 7y ago
    The problem is regulations. If the river is already hotter than the max temperature allowed as output, then it’s not possible to operate, for regulatory reasons. Temperature delta is on the order of 0.1°C
IloveHN84 7y ago
Interesting how they didn't sell that surplus to South countries as Italy or Spain, where major consumption peaks in Summer due to air cooling systems
- wereHamster 7y ago
  They most definitely try. But don't forget that you also have to transfer the electricity from the producer to the consumer. The transmission lines across Europe may not be able to carry that much energy across these distances.
Maledictus 7y ago
In winter some nuclear power plants also have to be shut down because their cooling rivers are frozen.
- littlestymaar 7y ago
  Idk about Germany, but this cannot happen in France, the climat is way too warm for that. Edit: having looked a bit more in details, it looks like even though the rivers can't be frozen to a point it stops the plant from functioning, the water admission systems can (partially) freeze in extreme weather and it happened a few time in France already.
- roenxi 7y ago
  It'd be technically interesting to see how expensive it is to mine the ice and shovel it into directly into the cooling system somehow. It isn't like there is a problem finding heat to melt the ice once it is on site, absorbing waste heat is the whole point.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  Freezing rivers are less of a pfroblem in Germany and France, but the rivers can be low on water so that the cooling might be limited in the winter. And there have been winters, where the nuclear production in France was struggling keep up with the heating requirements.
- distances 7y ago
  In Finland the nuclear plants are by the sea, I'd imagine this to be at least part of the reason. Finnish plants have to reduce capacity during hot summers too, but it's because of their environmental requirements: the exhaust water back to the sea must not exceed a given threshold to protect marine life.
  - seszett 7y ago
    It's also because of environmental requirements in France, and I expect in Germany as well. Nuclear plants could use warmer water, but regulation forbids them from releasing water at a higher temperature than 30°C.
Arn_Thor 7y ago
It is a problem, if not a very big one right now. With the climate changing, expect Europe to build out more air conditioning to cope with hotter summers, raising power usage. Dismissing this very real operational problem for the power plants is unwise.
- realusername 7y ago
  Air conditioning is consuming much less electricity than heating, there's no scenario where it would become greater than the winter usage. And there's only a few reactors affected by this issue, you have this kind of clickbait article every year.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    > Air conditioning is consuming much less electricity than heating, there's no scenario where it would become greater than the winter usage. How about "most people aren't using electricity for heating"? People rarely heat their houses with electricity in Europe, that would be very expensive. It's usually gas or oil boiler, sometimes a coal one.
    - realusername 7y ago
      You have about 50% share of electricity heating in France, it's far from nothing. Edit: And coal heating is probably close to zero to be honest, that sounds old, even for the countryside. The rest of those 50% would be gas, petrol and wood.
      - noragami 7y ago
        I am so jealous. Here in Kazakhstan we use coal-powered central heating. And here is the kind of air it gives us: https://b.radikal.ru/b12/1902/bd/a6d615dba25b.jpg https://b.radikal.ru/b12/1902/bd/a6d615dba25b.jpg https://d.radikal.ru/d15/1901/1b/ea0e8c26f8d2.jpg https://d.radikal.ru/d15/1901/1b/ea0e8c26f8d2.jpg It gets much worse in the evening. These photos were taken in Almaty, but the situation is the same everywhere (if not worse).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by mrb 7y ago

flukus 7y ago

Even if it's a non-problem now it will be a growing one in future and there are a few problems here. Nuclear power makes up 70% of France's electricity, so even if they normally turn off/down some reactors it will become a huge problem if they have to turn many of them off. It's also much easier to plan for a seasonal variance then a weather one, they get much less notification of when rivers will be too hot and when they will cool down again is unpredictable. Finally it undermines the economics of nuclear power, they already take decades to recoup the build cost, if they even can against renewables in future, being able to run even less pushes that further out. Most importantly it's a warning to other countries considering nuclear, especially equatorial ones where nuclear power is almost non-existent.

lxmorj 7y ago
Isn't this just a design problem? Surely the temperature we're trying to reduce is much, much higher than "summer river" temps. Seems like a higher flow rate and/or a better heat exchanger would fix this.
- fhars 7y ago
  How would a more efficient heat exchanger reduce the resulting temperatures of the river water used to dumps the heat? A river full of dead fish is even worse PR than long term radiation danger.
- ohyes 7y ago
  This is specifically a problem with building a nuclear power plant on too small a body of water. The ocean doesn’t have this problem. Neither would the Great Lakes.
  - littlestymaar 7y ago
    Actually it's a problem that arises when you build a nuclear plant next to an intermediate body of water. When the river is too small (or irregular, like the Loire) you build cooling towers on your plant, and you are fine (or at least, you need much more extreme weather conditions to have issues). The problem with plants built on the Rhône is that there is usually enough water in the river for direct cooling, so the designers didn't bother with a cooling tower[1]. But when the water flow is low, you need to stop the plant. [1]not all of them though, in some cases the Rhône's flow wasn't enough for direct cooling and they went with cooling towers: The Cruas-Meysse plant has cooling towers and it's not affected by the current heatwave. Also, the Bugey and Tricastin plants have a mix of both (2 reactors with direct cooling and two with cooling towers) and only the reactors with direct cooling are affected.
    - elproxy 7y ago
      I thought the cooling towers at Tricastin were only for the fuel enrichment part
- elproxy 7y ago
  The problem is regulations. If the river is already hotter than the max temperature allowed as output, then it’s not possible to operate, for regulatory reasons. Temperature delta is on the order of 0.1°C

IloveHN84 7y ago

Interesting how they didn't sell that surplus to South countries as Italy or Spain, where major consumption peaks in Summer due to air cooling systems

wereHamster 7y ago
They most definitely try. But don't forget that you also have to transfer the electricity from the producer to the consumer. The transmission lines across Europe may not be able to carry that much energy across these distances.

Maledictus 7y ago

In winter some nuclear power plants also have to be shut down because their cooling rivers are frozen.

littlestymaar 7y ago
Idk about Germany, but this cannot happen in France, the climat is way too warm for that. Edit: having looked a bit more in details, it looks like even though the rivers can't be frozen to a point it stops the plant from functioning, the water admission systems can (partially) freeze in extreme weather and it happened a few time in France already.
roenxi 7y ago
It'd be technically interesting to see how expensive it is to mine the ice and shovel it into directly into the cooling system somehow. It isn't like there is a problem finding heat to melt the ice once it is on site, absorbing waste heat is the whole point.
_ph_ 7y ago
Freezing rivers are less of a pfroblem in Germany and France, but the rivers can be low on water so that the cooling might be limited in the winter. And there have been winters, where the nuclear production in France was struggling keep up with the heating requirements.
distances 7y ago
In Finland the nuclear plants are by the sea, I'd imagine this to be at least part of the reason. Finnish plants have to reduce capacity during hot summers too, but it's because of their environmental requirements: the exhaust water back to the sea must not exceed a given threshold to protect marine life.
- seszett 7y ago
  It's also because of environmental requirements in France, and I expect in Germany as well. Nuclear plants could use warmer water, but regulation forbids them from releasing water at a higher temperature than 30°C.

Arn_Thor 7y ago

It is a problem, if not a very big one right now. With the climate changing, expect Europe to build out more air conditioning to cope with hotter summers, raising power usage. Dismissing this very real operational problem for the power plants is unwise.

realusername 7y ago
Air conditioning is consuming much less electricity than heating, there's no scenario where it would become greater than the winter usage. And there's only a few reactors affected by this issue, you have this kind of clickbait article every year.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  > Air conditioning is consuming much less electricity than heating, there's no scenario where it would become greater than the winter usage. How about "most people aren't using electricity for heating"? People rarely heat their houses with electricity in Europe, that would be very expensive. It's usually gas or oil boiler, sometimes a coal one.
  - realusername 7y ago
    You have about 50% share of electricity heating in France, it's far from nothing. Edit: And coal heating is probably close to zero to be honest, that sounds old, even for the countryside. The rest of those 50% would be gas, petrol and wood.
    - noragami 7y ago
      I am so jealous. Here in Kazakhstan we use coal-powered central heating. And here is the kind of air it gives us: https://b.radikal.ru/b12/1902/bd/a6d615dba25b.jpg https://b.radikal.ru/b12/1902/bd/a6d615dba25b.jpg https://d.radikal.ru/d15/1901/1b/ea0e8c26f8d2.jpg https://d.radikal.ru/d15/1901/1b/ea0e8c26f8d2.jpg It gets much worse in the evening. These photos were taken in Almaty, but the situation is the same everywhere (if not worse).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]