3 ms·
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
by 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 ago3 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.