4 ms·

There is nothing intrinsic about the nuclear cycle that demands large quantities of water. Nuclear plants, like all thermal generators, require a cool sink wher

by 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.

by yholio 5y ago

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.