5 ms·

A large share of the other GHG emitting sectors could also shift to electricity. For example various heating processes in industry and commercial sectors burn f

A large share of the other GHG emitting sectors could also shift to electricity. For example various heating processes in industry and commercial sectors burn fuels such as natural gas and could switch to electricity. And the externalities of providing energy to electric transportation is very much what we are talking about: where are we getting the power from.

ttul 5y ago
Waste heat from nuclear can also be used for industrial processes. And it’s waste heat. It’s free.
- epistasis 5y ago
  Good luck transmitting it to where you need it, though... The waste heat is also a significant limiting factor for nuclear, currently. In the US, we only have a limited amount of water heat sinks that we can use to dissipate waste heat, and there's limited heating allowed before we destroy those ecosystems. The figure that I heard recently was about ~500GW across the nation. After that, we will need to find other solutions, which bar often more expensive that using natural water. There's a nuclear plant in Arizona that uses water water from Phoenix, for example. But after that we will need some innovation in water heat management to overcome the natural limitations of thermal generators like nuclear, at least while on planet earth.
  - Accujack 5y ago
    >Good luck transmitting it to where you need it, though... True, but the scale of the problem we're dealing with makes it worthwhile to consider locating certain industries near nuclear plants to take advantage of low cost/free energy. Locating industries there means they can close elsewhere, freeing space and lowering consumption of electricity. >The waste heat is also a significant limiting factor for nuclear, It is, but the above also helps with that, consuming the waste heat to some degree as it simultaneously makes industry cheaper to operate. Another possibility is to use the waste heat from a reactor to heat indoor farms/greenhouses. A vertical farm uses a fraction of the water an outdoor farm does, it produces food in a very small area of land relative to an outdoor farm, it produces high quality food that usually needs no pesticides to produce good yields. One final advantage of vertical farms is that they free up land to allow it to be reforested or at least planted with non food crops that will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. So many people's thinking about how to adapt our power generation to climate change is limited by the assumption that whatever we do must be a drop in replacement for what we have now. That's not the case, and in fact it's likely we'll have to change far more than just how we generate power to survive.
  - evv 5y ago
    Any reason not to use ocean water? The Diablo Canyon reactor in California has tech that limits ocean water temperature increase to 20°F, to avoid harm to sea life. You can also spend excess energy on desalination, which is helpful for water-starved places like CA. And yes, this is CA's only nuclear reactor, which politicians are actively pushing to shut down without a replacement.
    - jabl 5y ago
      Ocean water is indeed an excellent source of cooling water. Many thermal power plants (nuclear and others) are situated along rivers not because people were stupid and didn't realize the ocean exists, but because those power plants are sited to serve nearby communities and industries. Sure, long distance electricity transmission is one solution (HVDC or traditional AC). Using ambient air as the final heat sink is another. Both have costs in terms of energy loss and higher capital costs, but are doable.
    - epistasis 5y ago
      It's funny that you mention Diablo Canyon's ocean intake, but then say it's politicians pushing for shutdown. Diablo Canyon is being shutdown, not by politicians, but by the utility PG&E. The wikipedia page for DC now stays that PG&E is shutting it down because they don't want to operate it half time when there are cheaper renewable resources, but in the past I think a bigger impact was that water cooling system. DC uses once through cooling currently, and would need to convert away from that in order to meet modern environmental regulations. So though I suppose you could blame "politicians" for pushing for the closure, that omits some really important facts about why PG&E is closing, and it all comes down to costs and environmental regulations that affect all plants, not just nuclear.
      - loeg 5y ago
        Those costs facing PG&E are essentially imposed by politicians subsidizing solar/wind.
        epistasis 5y ago
  - jabl 5y ago
    Dry cooling is a possible solution (that is, using ambient air as the final heat sink rather than some body of water). It does slightly decrease the thermal efficiency of the plant, as well as increase capital cost, but is a workable solution.
epistasis 5y ago
That's exactly it. All of our decarbonization plans rest on electrifying everything. Even many chemical feedstocks, like hydrogen for ammonia fertilizer, will be produced through electricity. > Clean electricity is the plate at the decarbonization BBQ. Everything else gets loaded onto it. Without clean electricity, things get messy. - Costa Samaras

ttul 5y ago

Waste heat from nuclear can also be used for industrial processes. And it’s waste heat. It’s free.

epistasis 5y ago
Good luck transmitting it to where you need it, though... The waste heat is also a significant limiting factor for nuclear, currently. In the US, we only have a limited amount of water heat sinks that we can use to dissipate waste heat, and there's limited heating allowed before we destroy those ecosystems. The figure that I heard recently was about ~500GW across the nation. After that, we will need to find other solutions, which bar often more expensive that using natural water. There's a nuclear plant in Arizona that uses water water from Phoenix, for example. But after that we will need some innovation in water heat management to overcome the natural limitations of thermal generators like nuclear, at least while on planet earth.
- Accujack 5y ago
  >Good luck transmitting it to where you need it, though... True, but the scale of the problem we're dealing with makes it worthwhile to consider locating certain industries near nuclear plants to take advantage of low cost/free energy. Locating industries there means they can close elsewhere, freeing space and lowering consumption of electricity. >The waste heat is also a significant limiting factor for nuclear, It is, but the above also helps with that, consuming the waste heat to some degree as it simultaneously makes industry cheaper to operate. Another possibility is to use the waste heat from a reactor to heat indoor farms/greenhouses. A vertical farm uses a fraction of the water an outdoor farm does, it produces food in a very small area of land relative to an outdoor farm, it produces high quality food that usually needs no pesticides to produce good yields. One final advantage of vertical farms is that they free up land to allow it to be reforested or at least planted with non food crops that will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. So many people's thinking about how to adapt our power generation to climate change is limited by the assumption that whatever we do must be a drop in replacement for what we have now. That's not the case, and in fact it's likely we'll have to change far more than just how we generate power to survive.
- evv 5y ago
  Any reason not to use ocean water? The Diablo Canyon reactor in California has tech that limits ocean water temperature increase to 20°F, to avoid harm to sea life. You can also spend excess energy on desalination, which is helpful for water-starved places like CA. And yes, this is CA's only nuclear reactor, which politicians are actively pushing to shut down without a replacement.
  - jabl 5y ago
    Ocean water is indeed an excellent source of cooling water. Many thermal power plants (nuclear and others) are situated along rivers not because people were stupid and didn't realize the ocean exists, but because those power plants are sited to serve nearby communities and industries. Sure, long distance electricity transmission is one solution (HVDC or traditional AC). Using ambient air as the final heat sink is another. Both have costs in terms of energy loss and higher capital costs, but are doable.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    It's funny that you mention Diablo Canyon's ocean intake, but then say it's politicians pushing for shutdown. Diablo Canyon is being shutdown, not by politicians, but by the utility PG&E. The wikipedia page for DC now stays that PG&E is shutting it down because they don't want to operate it half time when there are cheaper renewable resources, but in the past I think a bigger impact was that water cooling system. DC uses once through cooling currently, and would need to convert away from that in order to meet modern environmental regulations. So though I suppose you could blame "politicians" for pushing for the closure, that omits some really important facts about why PG&E is closing, and it all comes down to costs and environmental regulations that affect all plants, not just nuclear.
    - loeg 5y ago
      Those costs facing PG&E are essentially imposed by politicians subsidizing solar/wind.
      - epistasis 5y ago
- jabl 5y ago
  Dry cooling is a possible solution (that is, using ambient air as the final heat sink rather than some body of water). It does slightly decrease the thermal efficiency of the plant, as well as increase capital cost, but is a workable solution.

epistasis 5y ago

That's exactly it. All of our decarbonization plans rest on electrifying everything. Even many chemical feedstocks, like hydrogen for ammonia fertilizer, will be produced through electricity. > Clean electricity is the plate at the decarbonization BBQ. Everything else gets loaded onto it. Without clean electricity, things get messy. - Costa Samaras