3 ms·
(not the GP you're responding to) My belief is, that their effect is predominantly local: they alter the biome in the water outflow, because of the thermal mass
by ggm 2y ago
(not the GP you're responding to) My belief is, that their effect is predominantly local: they alter the biome in the water outflow, because of the thermal mass they dump. They alter the local hydrology and winds because of the thermal cooling towers. I don't think this is a significant contribution to AGW, their net contribution is positive/helpful. But warmer water around water cooled nuclear plants is not benign, and there are things like massive jellyfish swarms which can cause problems.
Soaring birds love thermals at power stations, as do glider pilots.
Osmotic de-salination plants cause problems, Tidal Barrier power plants cause problems, There are always problems. At scale, you have to get good people to do the sums on cost:benefit. That was the root cause for my OP post: this is a linear optimisation problem.
- defrost 2y agoIndeed, many hunam facilities put heat out into the environment, even the non human living biomass has an IR signature. Not just heat, we're moving into times when more and more fresh water will be desalinated water which implies higher concentrations of removed sea salts about more and larger plant outflows. Our need for batteries, solar, and all things solar is increasing local amounts of radioactive waste (hey, I'm pro solar, but these are genuine by products). Copper mines, and we apparently need many more, suck for indigenous people everywhere. Side effects everwhere it seems. The key issue in the context of the GP comment is that human and biomass generated heat isn't a large part of the increasing levels of trapped heat globally .. that is heat that comes from the sun, as it always has, and is now increasingly held by greater insulation levels - which we humans very much are responsible for.