4 ms·

It is a heat source for thermo-electric generation - basically just a way to boil water[1] not the "unlimited" power its always promoted as promising. We don't

It is a heat source for thermo-electric generation - basically just a way to boil water[1] not the "unlimited" power its always promoted as promising. We don't have unlimited water resources[2]. Elon Musk decided big disposable rockets where just not worth building - well big thermo-electric plants are just not worth building. Solar and wind are the paradigm change in power generation, any Manhattan project would be crazy not to focus on them now and supporting technologies. [1] https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/thermoelectric-power-water-use https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/t... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21156408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21156408 - "Global groundwater extraction a ticking time bomb”

DuskStar 7y ago
Given sufficient power and seawater, we have unlimited drinking water. Reactors provide sufficient power. So I don't think "running out of water" is a valid concern here. (Though some plants have had issues from lack of water flow in rivers, that's more a temperature issue than a lack of water one)
- strainer 7y ago
  More magic unlimited thinking I'm afraid. There are costs to desalinating seawater, cost of the plant, cost of locating plants to suitable coastlines, cost of disposal of concentrated brine, cost of introducing gigawatts of heat into water courses and local region - in an already heat stressed climate. Its big resource intensive thermoelectric generation, with or without unlimited fuel source.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
You seem to misunderstand the issue. Reactors do not "consume" freshwater, primary and secondary coolants runs in a closed loop, water never "leaves" or runs out. There are also variants that use liquid metals The powerplant requires a cold reservoir to discharge heat, as does any heat engine. Cooling towers that evaporate fresh water are one of several methods for doing that. Coastal powerplants use seawater to discharge heat. Reactors in megawatt range usually use passive cooling and air cooling, you could operate them in the middle of sahara.
- strainer 7y ago
  > Reactors do not "consume" freshwater, primary and secondary coolants runs in a closed loop, water never "leaves" or runs out. That is untrue. They have the same cooling requirements as all thermoelectric power plants do, and some like eg. Diablo Canyon do straight up boil water away. Others heat up lakes or coastlines - which costs (more plant, land and maintenance) and can only be done in some places [1]. Plants cooling requirements are a big part of their overall cost, even with the legacy environmental protection which has led to our current crises. [1] - https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/energy-and-water-use/water-energy-electricity-cooling-power-plant#bf-toc-1 https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/energy-and-water-use/wat... Types of cooling ( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045... )
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    The part you are quoting as 'not true' talks about primary coolant, which is radioactive as that's the water flowing thought the reactor core. I assure you it never leaves the station. I think the overall thrust of your post is in general agreement with mine - reactors have to discharge heat into seawater, or use cooling towers which evaporate water. This the issue is of correctly designing the cooling of, and sighting of, the powerplant. Furthermore, this is not an inherent quality of nuclear power, it's a product of deploying it in the form of >3000 MWt power-plants. If we adopted the approach of small module reactors, they can be passively cooled.
    - strainer 7y ago
      Sorry I was a bit short to simply say "untrue" but I had not raised the prospect of radioactive release and am aware of closed layers of cooling. I pointed out all thermoeletric plants consume significant amounts of increasingly scarce water resources and it seems only misleading to reply "Reactors don't consume water...". Its like saying people don't consume gasoline (their machinery does) Reactors don't consume water (their electrical generation systems do) > Furthermore, this is not an inherent quality of nuclear power I never suggested it was - although nuclear plants due to having more complicated safety requirements than other thermoelectrics, do tend to have lower thermal efficiencies and higher cooling costs per energy unit produced. My point was those costs are significant at any practical scale of generation. The heat output itself of thermoelectric plants can be environmentally significant, so the idea of reactor breakthroughs promising "unlimited" generation is, well, its basically a marketing line, for research funding.

DuskStar 7y ago

Given sufficient power and seawater, we have unlimited drinking water. Reactors provide sufficient power. So I don't think "running out of water" is a valid concern here. (Though some plants have had issues from lack of water flow in rivers, that's more a temperature issue than a lack of water one)

strainer 7y ago
More magic unlimited thinking I'm afraid. There are costs to desalinating seawater, cost of the plant, cost of locating plants to suitable coastlines, cost of disposal of concentrated brine, cost of introducing gigawatts of heat into water courses and local region - in an already heat stressed climate. Its big resource intensive thermoelectric generation, with or without unlimited fuel source.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

You seem to misunderstand the issue. Reactors do not "consume" freshwater, primary and secondary coolants runs in a closed loop, water never "leaves" or runs out. There are also variants that use liquid metals The powerplant requires a cold reservoir to discharge heat, as does any heat engine. Cooling towers that evaporate fresh water are one of several methods for doing that. Coastal powerplants use seawater to discharge heat. Reactors in megawatt range usually use passive cooling and air cooling, you could operate them in the middle of sahara.

strainer 7y ago
> Reactors do not "consume" freshwater, primary and secondary coolants runs in a closed loop, water never "leaves" or runs out. That is untrue. They have the same cooling requirements as all thermoelectric power plants do, and some like eg. Diablo Canyon do straight up boil water away. Others heat up lakes or coastlines - which costs (more plant, land and maintenance) and can only be done in some places [1]. Plants cooling requirements are a big part of their overall cost, even with the legacy environmental protection which has led to our current crises. [1] - https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/energy-and-water-use/water-energy-electricity-cooling-power-plant#bf-toc-1 https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/energy-and-water-use/wat... Types of cooling ( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045... )
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  The part you are quoting as 'not true' talks about primary coolant, which is radioactive as that's the water flowing thought the reactor core. I assure you it never leaves the station. I think the overall thrust of your post is in general agreement with mine - reactors have to discharge heat into seawater, or use cooling towers which evaporate water. This the issue is of correctly designing the cooling of, and sighting of, the powerplant. Furthermore, this is not an inherent quality of nuclear power, it's a product of deploying it in the form of >3000 MWt power-plants. If we adopted the approach of small module reactors, they can be passively cooled.
  - strainer 7y ago
    Sorry I was a bit short to simply say "untrue" but I had not raised the prospect of radioactive release and am aware of closed layers of cooling. I pointed out all thermoeletric plants consume significant amounts of increasingly scarce water resources and it seems only misleading to reply "Reactors don't consume water...". Its like saying people don't consume gasoline (their machinery does) Reactors don't consume water (their electrical generation systems do) > Furthermore, this is not an inherent quality of nuclear power I never suggested it was - although nuclear plants due to having more complicated safety requirements than other thermoelectrics, do tend to have lower thermal efficiencies and higher cooling costs per energy unit produced. My point was those costs are significant at any practical scale of generation. The heat output itself of thermoelectric plants can be environmentally significant, so the idea of reactor breakthroughs promising "unlimited" generation is, well, its basically a marketing line, for research funding.