No, I don't mean cost, safety, waste, or proliferation -- though those are all serious problems. I mean the Achilles heel of nuclear power in the context of climate change: water.
Climate change means water shortages in many places and hotter water everywhere. Both are big problems for nukes:
... nuclear power is the most water-hungry of all energy sources, with a single reactor consuming 35-65 million litres of water each day.
The Australians, stuck in a once-in-a-1000-years drought, understandably worry about this a lot:
Operating a 2,400 Watt fan heater for one hour consumes 0.01 litres of water if wind is the energy source, 0.26 litres if solar is the energy source, 4.5 litres if coal is the energy source, or 5.5 litres if nuclear power is the energy source.
Hotter water is another serious worry. Nuclear power "requires great amounts of cool water to keep reactors operating at safe temperatures. That is worrying if the rivers and reservoirs which many power plants rely on for water are hot or depleted because of steadily rising air temperatures," noted the International Herald Tribune earlier this year.
During the extreme heat of 2003 in France, 17 nuclear reactors operated at reduced capacity or were turned off.
Patrice Lambert de Diesbach, an energy analyst at CM-CIC Securities in Paris, said hot summers were the problem. "We are up against the maximum amount of hot water that can be released into rivers," Diesbach said. "Unfortunately the situation is only going to get worse."
Indeed, if we stay on our current emissions trajectory, more than half of European summers will be hotter than 2003 within the next four decades, according to a 2004 study in Nature by British scientists from Oxford University and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. By the end of the century, "2003 would be classed as an anomalously cold summer relative to the new climate," the study notes.
I think that nuclear power could realistically provide no more than one "wedge" of the 10 or more wedge-sized climate solutions we need to avoid climate catastrophe. And if we don't avoid catastrophe, nuclear may find itself fizzling out as an energy strategy.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions
Comments
View as Flat
314159265 Posted 9:59 pm
30 Oct 2007
Quote from
http://energiekrise.de/uran/docs2006/REO-Uranium_5-12-200 ...
The proved reserves (=reasonably assured below 40 $/kgU extraction cost) and stocks will be exhausted within the next 30 years at current annual demand. Likewise, possible resources which contain all estimated discovered resources with extraction costs of up to 130 $/kg will be exhausted within 70 years.
So, nucular will not make any dent as long as there are no standard breeders or Thorium reactors available. And there's yet another Achilles heel: The time, money and personnel needed for construction...
Permalink
theBike45 Posted 10:01 pm
30 Oct 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:07 pm
30 Oct 2007
Only wind, solar, and biogas from waste are water friendly. In fact hydroelectric storage backup for renewables helps restore aquifers. Solar, wind, and wave power can be used to desalinate sea water without producing GHG.
An energy economy that runs on fossil, nuclear, and fuel farming will collapse from water shortage and water prices that eventually rival oil prices.
Composting toilets, compressed air driven water for cleaning, recycling drain water, and drip irrigation can save us from repeating Austrailia's water disaster.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:21 pm
30 Oct 2007
Radioactive compounds are concentrated by living things, we are like filters. Trapping the contaminants in fat cells near our reproductive organs. As a result genetic mutation related diseases are increasing rapidly. This according to Helen Caldicott when she spoke at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair.
Even where water is available, continuing nuclear power will render it toxic. Imagine an expansion of nuclear power to try in vain to head off GHG disaster. 1000s of new nuclear plants would be needed.
Better off with millions of distributed renewable power producing solar panels, wind machines, and fuel cell/biogas systems. lots of good jobs and economic growth in a healthy eco-system passed on to following generations. Or a huge nuclear corpoRAT contractor disaster? Choose.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 1:27 am
31 Oct 2007
Engineer Guilty Of Hiding Information About Ohio Nuclear Plant Corrosion; 2nd Worker Acquitted
TOLEDO, Ohio, Oct. 30, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) A federal jury found a former nuclear plant worker guilty Tuesday of concealing the worst corrosion ever found at a U.S. reactor. A second defendant was acquitted.
David Geisen, the Davis-Besse plant's former engineering design manager, was accused of misleading regulators into believing the plant along Lake Erie was safe. He faces up to five years in prison.
Private contractor Rodney Cook was acquitted by the same federal jury.
Prosecutors said the men lied in the fall of 2001 so the plant could delay a shutdown for a safety inspection. Months later, inspectors found an acid leak that nearly ate through the reactor's 6-inch-thick steel cap. It's not clear how close the plant was to an accident.
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 1:51 am
31 Oct 2007
I also want to acknowledge that Romm agrees that nuclear will supply one wedge. This requires nuclear power in 2050 to be triple what it is today. Since new power plants are perhaps 50% larger than today's plants, this will require just over 2x as many power plants. Based on the enthusiasm in the US and Asia, the number of new plants expected in Europe, and the number of reports telling Germans, who advertise coal power as nuclear-free electricity, one wedge for nuclear seems pretty doable.
That said, the source of energy that will encounter the biggest problems due to changing weather is hydro. Both Australia and the US may encounter problems with hydro soon (er, hasn't Australia already?)
Changing weather, particularly changes in the number of really hot days, must be designed for, requiring more cooling towers, or/and restricting new sites to areas where water is adequate for the changes expected.
A question -- why do you assume that building plans won't change? Do you think that no one in nuclear power construction has this figured out?
Joseph, do you really think that non-nuclear solutions will supply 9 or 11 or however many wedges?
There is Enough Uranium for considerably more than one wedge.
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:15 am
31 Oct 2007
Trying to fathom the Climate Deluders is like trying to pilot an 8 seat mini-van full of kids, ages 4 to 9.
One minute it's one thing.
The next minute it's another.
If they're not whining about the Earth being "engulfed" by too much water, then their whining about too little water for nukes!
Maybe that's the problem. The Earth is like an old 1960's Dodge Craftsman Van...and what Mother needs is a new style "personal transport" vehicle where everyone can have their own drop down DVD player and "comfort zone" nozzle. Little Raji can chill in low 70's temperature, while Mai Ling can bake in her favorite high 80's SoCal heat.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Matt G Posted 2:17 am
31 Oct 2007
Fresh water is used because it's the cheapest and easiest way to reject heat. But it's certainly not the only way to reject heat.
Permalink
gumsh0e Posted 2:57 am
31 Oct 2007
Moreover, much has been said about the need for French nuclear plants having to reduce power during recent heat waves but what is conveniently lost in the discussion is that wind farms are typically even more adversly affected by high temperatures. People don't normally associate words like "stifling heat" with gusty breezes and European wind turbines were operating at substantially below their capacity during that time. Winds tend to blow strongest during the Spring and Fall when demand for electricity is lightest.
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 3:12 am
31 Oct 2007
Also, coal plants in Alberta were shut off this summer because of the unseasonably hot weather. Cooling is necessary for all thermal plants: nuclear, fossil fuel, biopower, and solar thermal.
Does anyone know the effect of temperature on photovoltaic (solar) panel efficiency?
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
Matt G Posted 5:18 am
31 Oct 2007
Permalink
trock Posted 6:03 am
31 Oct 2007
Just pointing out those consequences doesn't make someone an idiot. Maybe there needs to be more balanced discussions on these things, but then the length of the posts would be chapters in books and books in length, how are we going to read all that.
The reason those nuclear plants in the early 1980's we canceled was not because of environmentalist protest, but because the financing dropped out from them for a number of reasons. I think that hopefully nuclear can get rebuilt again. Global warming is a worse problem than nuclear IMHO, but we have to be smart about placing these things.
Wind has time of need, distance to markets and other problems. Nuclear has a number of problems, as well as this water problem. But the nuclear water problem is almost as bad as a coal plant water problem, so that means it's not an absolute killer problem. Like an earlier post said, redesign for less water use or solve the problem some other way.
As I recall from something I read years ago, the 2 ways of cooling is closed and open cooling. One with water running through pipes and the other water being evaporated. The water getting evaporated used more water, the other way costs more for all the piping. not sure if that's still the the technology options.
Permalink
gumsh0e Posted 6:31 am
31 Oct 2007
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 6:46 am
31 Oct 2007
Karen Street
Permalink
gumsh0e Posted 6:58 am
31 Oct 2007
Permalink
Matt G Posted 7:03 am
31 Oct 2007
Open cooling towers. These are the giant stacks you associate with nuclear plants. Water is sprayed inside, and air flows past the water, cooling it. This method has the highest amount of water loss.
Lake/river/ocean heat rejection. Cold water is pulled in, run through a heat exchanger, and dumped back where it came from. It's the same water it was, just a little bit warmer. Not much water loss, but you must look at the effects of warmer water on plants and animals living in that area.
Closed loop heat rejection. Basically like a car's radiator. No water required.
Domestic water. Route domestic water for a major city through plant. Water is warmed, then loses heat to the ground on its way to the city. Domestic water supply is a few degrees warmer, which saves heating water energy.
Other. You could use waste water for cooling, or dump even more heat to cities in order to provide home heating. You could modify #3 using a heat pump to dump heat to the air at a higher temperature. You could use heat in industrial processes. Etcetera.
Permalink
elbarto Posted 11:19 am
31 Oct 2007
Of course one solution being trialled is to make bullets out of depleted uranium and pump it into Iraqis. But we all know how well that's going don't we?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:44 pm
31 Oct 2007
Nuclear powerplants do not produce waste. The spent-fuel of the current reactor fleet of the United States is being moved from cooling-pool storage to on-site dry-cask storage.
google.com/search?q=+site%3Awww.fas.org+garwin+dry+storage
Spent reactor-fuel does not take up very much room, so this does not present a problem.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:06 am
01 Nov 2007
Zero point zero!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:09 am
01 Nov 2007
Helps evolution along you know. Now if nuclear power fans believed in evolution, you would have another talking point.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:54 am
01 Nov 2007
Up in the Northeast it was discovered and tens of millions of gallons of seawater were recycled a day. And people wondered why the fishing and lobstering was no good ... no wonder.
In the latest attack on nuclear facilities and their cooling, closed-system cooling was proposed for the Millstone Plant (from memory here). However, why pick on a nuke when it was a small proportion of the gas, oil, and coal fired powered plants in terms of water use? Why is a nuke special in tis regard?
Lastly, it's not just the fishies but thermal pollution as well. Water bodies such as the Hudson New York Bay, and Long Island Sound have been warming at an remarkable pace, some think in part due to thermal pollution from all the power plants.
For too long we have viewed the oceans, bays, and river as dumping grounds or as an unlimited resource to be exploited.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
gumsh0e Posted 1:39 am
01 Nov 2007
Permalink
elbarto Posted 9:30 am
01 Nov 2007
So you have absolutely no objection to India, China, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Syria, North Korea all having dozens of breeders for "the peaceful production of plutonium". Afterall, how could you deny these states the basic human right of "climate friendly and earth saving" energy production?
After 50+ years of nuclear industry a safe, and reliable breeder reactor doesn't exist. The ones that do exist were built solely for the production of weapons grade plutonium and were horrendously expensive to build and operate.
The argument stands. As of this instant, there is nowhere to put the thousands of tonnes of high level waste current sitting in "sealed" drums of questionable long term integrity. It remains to be seen if long term nuclear waste storage will ever be possible. We will need to wait 10,000 years to see if what we do in the near future was in fact, a good idea.
Happy Breeding...
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:07 am
01 Nov 2007
In what form is the spent-fuel? Why do you refer to spent-fuel as waste? To what "drums" are you referring? How are the "drums" that you refer-to sealed? How are the "drums" that you refer-to of questionable long term integrity? Could you show us a picture or diagram of such a "drum"?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:03 pm
01 Nov 2007
Furthermore, hot weather is great for solar power, when wind wanes solar peaks in summer.
Hydroelectric storage to back up wind and solar helps conserve water by restoring aquifers.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
gumsh0e Posted 1:13 am
02 Nov 2007
A fast reactor design described in Scientific American a year or so ago doesn't require enriched uranium fuel and would recycle the fuel in a way that doesn't separate the plutonium from the other actinides, such that it both burns the long-lived isotopes and makes the recycled fuel worthless as a bomb material. Win-Win.
So, we've dispelled the myth that nuclear plants inherently require lots of cooling water, creates waste that we must wait millenia to decay, and is by definition a proliferation threat. What's next?
Permalink
gumsh0e Posted 1:31 am
02 Nov 2007
Nice theory, but I'm not sure what you are implying. Winds are created as the result of uneven heating of the Earth's surface. Are you saying we can therefore expect more wind in the Summer and Fall, when electricity demand is light, that we just use to pump water (inefficiently) into reservoirs until Summer? Also, PV is not yet cost competitive and is not a serious option.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:31 pm
02 Nov 2007
Wind does not need months long energy storage. With mass production solar PV will be cheaper than nukes.
Darn nukers. Keep on repeating your favorite tallking points. We've heard them all already.
You can talk and talk about new and better reactors and schemes to prevent proliferation, contamination, and get rid of waste. These new reactors would need decades of research and development then testing before they are manufactured in the 10's of thousands to put a dent in GHG climate disaster.
Renewable distributed power generation and storage is ready right now. And it is not only the least costly, it will create a boom that will revive our job base and economy.
All nukes will do is line the pockets of corporate thieves and give madmen dirty bombs and even nuclear weapons. While bankrupting consumers and taxcpayers with astronomical costs.
There's not enough money anywhere to do that.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink