Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Magus · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:04 pm

Thought that some of you might find this interesting...

Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns

*Snip*

Quote:

By MITCH WEISS, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago

LAKE NORMAN, N.C. - Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.

Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities may be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies.

Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer.

"Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. "You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants." He added: "This is becoming a crisis."

I don't think it's really necessary for me point out how bad this is.

If oil prices spike this summer as some of us here predict, and even a portion of the U.S. nuclear power generation is brought offline... :roll:

lawnchair · **Joined:** Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 888

Coal-fired plants have to dump waste heat in exactly the same ways at pretty much the same rate per MWh. Fewer of them have evaporative cooling towers because they're a little easier to get sited on populated rivers/lakes/oceans. But, anywhere that a drought is going to shutdown a nuke, it would equally shut down a coal plant.

Andy · **Joined:** Sun May 16, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 518

The alternative is not necessarily more coal Lawnchair. It could be CC nat gas that dumps almost half as much heat and would thus be less affected or thinking advanced strategy, fuel cell/gas turbine hybrids that use no cooling water. We need to think outside the box here.It is not nuke, coal or nothing.

thor · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:42 am

Concentrated solar power doesn't have this problem, neither wind turbines. :razz:

pstarr · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:20 am

Magus wrote:

Thought that some of you might find this interesting...

Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns

*Snip*

Quote:

By MITCH WEISS, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago

LAKE NORMAN, N.C. - Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.

Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities may be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies.

Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer.

"Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. "You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants." He added: "This is becoming a crisis."

I don't think it's really necessary for me point out how bad this is.

If oil prices spike this summer as some of us here predict, and even a portion of the U.S. nuclear power generation is brought offline... :roll:

wow hadn't thought of that :shock:

But but but wait. I got an idea! We could, we could ahh, just blow a fan at the nukes. Maybe use a wind turbine in reverse or something like that to cool it down. It's fine

go back to sleep.

efarmer · **Joined:** Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:00 am **Posts:** 805

I was concerned until you turned your magnificent idea machine
loose on this one pstarr. Now I can go back to work on my cold
fusion problem. It's so cold today, if I fall asleep in my chair my
buns will fuse right to the cushion.

That feller biting the statue of Liberty on your avatar looks familiar,
was he with Monty Python at one time?

Concerned · **Joined:** Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 1608

thor wrote:

Concentrated solar power doesn't have this problem, neither wind turbines. :razz:

For solar too bad the sun don't shine 24 hours in the day all year at a high intensity.

For wind too bad the wind don't blow all day all year at a constant ongoing rate.

But I think you are correct that we have alternatives and we are all saved from our energy predicament. Want to come shopping with me?

Concerned · **Joined:** Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 1608

lawnchair wrote:

Coal-fired plants have to dump waste heat in exactly the same ways at pretty much the same rate per MWh. Fewer of them have evaporative cooling towers because they're a little easier to get sited on populated rivers/lakes/oceans. But, anywhere that a drought is going to shutdown a nuke, it would equally shut down a coal plant.

True.

Thinking in the safety / danger sphere if something went wrong when a coal or nuclear plant had to be shut down due to lack of cooling...

Which one would you rather live close to?

Starvid · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:56 pm

The anti-nuclear media strikes again. This is not a nuke problem, it's a steam plant problem, being just as big a problem for coal or biomass as for nuclear.

Starvid · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:59 pm

Concerned wrote:

lawnchair wrote:

Coal-fired plants have to dump waste heat in exactly the same ways at pretty much the same rate per MWh. Fewer of them have evaporative cooling towers because they're a little easier to get sited on populated rivers/lakes/oceans. But, anywhere that a drought is going to shutdown a nuke, it would equally shut down a coal plant.

True.

Thinking in the safety / danger sphere if something went wrong when a coal or nuclear plant had to be shut down due to lack of cooling...

Which one would you rather live close to?

The antinuclear PO.com posters strike again.

It would be the same. If you didn't have enough cooling water for a nuke (or a coal) you would gradually reduce output as the amount of available cooling water fell.

Of course, in a pinch you could get just as much water as you would ever need, with the only adverse affect being that you would discharge too hot water into the river.

Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns in the U.S.

Who is online