3 ms·

The article touches the point that nuclear energy requires water, and a lot of it, for cooling (which is often omitted in such discussions). This is important a

The article touches the point that nuclear energy requires water, and a lot of it, for cooling (which is often omitted in such discussions). This is important as the water cycle will drastically change in the next decades, to an extent that is very hard to predict with the present resolution and accuracy of climate models. Nuclear reactors need cooling even after being stopped, there are 4 plants (14 reactors) along the Rhone downstream Geneva and French authorities don't like too much when we reduce the Rhone's flow to keep the lake at sane level. From what i have read these last years, experts usually advocate rather for an energy mix (some regions might be more adapted to others for some modality) rather than a single solution. I used to be rather against nuclear energy, for one main reason: this sector is always managed in full secrecy, mostly by military or ppl close to those circles. It is also a sector with heavy subcontracting, i have seen a documentary where ppl in France were entering into a reactor while fearing for their lives (the dose they said) and being paid minimal wages.

vondur 5y ago
I believe one of the key features of the new power plant being built in Wyoming and sponsored by Bill Gates/Dept. Of Energy doesn't use water as a coolant.
yholio 5y ago
There is nothing intrinsic about the nuclear cycle that demands large quantities of water. Nuclear plants, like all thermal generators, require a cool sink where the turbines can dump the waste heat. This is usually and most economically a large body of water, which is sucked in, heated by a few degrees and dumped back out, left to cool of back into the environment. Water is not "consumed" and remains available for any other use. Powerplants that don't have access to significant water reservoirs can use cooling towers where a much smaller quantity of water is forced to evaporate, providing the same cooling but with a somewhat lower efficiency. Using this principle, nuclear plants have been constructed in the desert, see Palo Verde nuclear generating station.
- immmmmm 5y ago
  it's true that evaporating water is pretty efficient at cooling stuff. still according to [0] it's 3m^3/s water consumption on average for this station, doable in many place indeed, until there is a mega drought where basically you'll need 10 trucks per minutes to keep things in control. [0] https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/02/25/palo-verde-nuclear-water-use/ https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/02/25/palo-verde-nuclear...
  - yholio 5y ago
    3 cubic meters per second is really nothing when operating at full 4GWh power. A single percent of the discharge of the Mississippi could supply 50 such plants, a third of all power consumption of the USA. When the reactor is SCRAM-ed in an emergency, the power output drops instantly to 6% of the operating value, 0.5% in 24h, and 0.1% in 10 days. Assuming worse come to worst, you need to SCRAM all 3 reactors simultaneously, and the pond is completely dry after the first week or so, you can still cool the cores using trucks, it's just 3l per second boil-off, about 10 semi tankers per day. There are many problems with nuclear power, but this issue of water is completely blown out of proportion.

vondur 5y ago

I believe one of the key features of the new power plant being built in Wyoming and sponsored by Bill Gates/Dept. Of Energy doesn't use water as a coolant.

yholio 5y ago

There is nothing intrinsic about the nuclear cycle that demands large quantities of water. Nuclear plants, like all thermal generators, require a cool sink where the turbines can dump the waste heat. This is usually and most economically a large body of water, which is sucked in, heated by a few degrees and dumped back out, left to cool of back into the environment. Water is not "consumed" and remains available for any other use. Powerplants that don't have access to significant water reservoirs can use cooling towers where a much smaller quantity of water is forced to evaporate, providing the same cooling but with a somewhat lower efficiency. Using this principle, nuclear plants have been constructed in the desert, see Palo Verde nuclear generating station.

immmmmm 5y ago
it's true that evaporating water is pretty efficient at cooling stuff. still according to [0] it's 3m^3/s water consumption on average for this station, doable in many place indeed, until there is a mega drought where basically you'll need 10 trucks per minutes to keep things in control. [0] https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/02/25/palo-verde-nuclear-water-use/ https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/02/25/palo-verde-nuclear...
- yholio 5y ago
  3 cubic meters per second is really nothing when operating at full 4GWh power. A single percent of the discharge of the Mississippi could supply 50 such plants, a third of all power consumption of the USA. When the reactor is SCRAM-ed in an emergency, the power output drops instantly to 6% of the operating value, 0.5% in 24h, and 0.1% in 10 days. Assuming worse come to worst, you need to SCRAM all 3 reactors simultaneously, and the pond is completely dry after the first week or so, you can still cool the cores using trucks, it's just 3l per second boil-off, about 10 semi tankers per day. There are many problems with nuclear power, but this issue of water is completely blown out of proportion.