Nuclear power plants in U.S. Southeast may face shutdowns due to drought 5

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Des Emery Posted 1:06 pm
   24 Jan 2008

   Nukes and waterDo coal-fired plants also require vast quantities of water as a coolant or is just emitting vast quantities of CO2 preferable?  
   Since nuclear plants produce electricity to be distributed by wire perhaps those plants should be located where there are 'vast quantities' of H2O available, like on ocean-front locations.
   Many small nuclear plants would reduce the cost of building new installations to amortization over separate time periods, reduce their appeal to terrorist attacks, and condense the amounts of nuclear waste (the reactor rods)into easily stored caches to be utilized at some time in the future when we have figured out how to re-activate them.
   Big is not always beautiful.

   Permalink

2. 

   Vikingsson Posted 8:23 am
   25 Jan 2008

   Still no co-generation solutions?"Do coal-fired plants also require vast quantities of water as a coolant"
   They dump most of the heat into the sky.  Nuke plants need to cool down a much higher volume of much hotter fluids.
   I'm amazed that they still talk very little about co-generation.  Why waste all that heat in the first place?  It isn't hot enough to turn the turbines at that point but it is more than enough heat for other uses.  Cool it down by transferring the heat for other uses like district heating and hot water.  the southeast doesn't need a lot of heating but it needs as much hot water as anywhere else.  That water is going to be used anyway so why heat it at the house when it can be heated at source and shipped to the house already hot?  Some places have been doing that for a very long time....

   Permalink

3. 

   Des Emery Posted 1:17 pm
   25 Jan 2008

   Forethought NukeThank you, Vikingsson, for the elaboration you give to my post.  I agree that co-generation to make use of the heat produced after electricity has been generated is also an imperative.  Many small plants would definitely make such use more efficient being closer to the ultimate user, and would make power generation even less costly for the consumer.  And the electricity produced could power the pumps moving the water, another consolidation to be considered.  And another reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions which are a consequence of any power production except nuclear.  Solar, hydro, wind, etc., seem to be emission-free, but would never produce enough electricity to replace the internal combustion engine as would nuclear-generated power.

   Permalink

4. 

   northbranch Posted 10:21 pm
   28 Jan 2008

   terror scareThe Grist blurb on this article says one of the Achilles heels of nuclear power is "nuke plants' appeal as terrorist targets". Can someone remind us what percentage of terrorist attacks have targeted nuke plants?

   Permalink

5. 

   henryjoe Posted 9:21 am
   29 Jan 2008

   Nuclear Plants require water Writers lack of knowThe lack of knowledge of the writer of this article is the reason there is a lack of credibility of the anti all sources of energy society.
   
   The water isn't used to cool the water used in the turbines .
   
   The water is used to turn into steam and then is run into the cooliong toers where the steamn is converted back into water. Some ezczpes into the air but most is reutrned to aa reservoir for reuse.
   
   duh ....water used to cool water<>*&^%$$#

   Permalink