The Achilles heel of nuclear power

Nuclear plants require lots of water in an increasingly dry world

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 11:33 PM on 30 Oct 2007

Read more about: energy | nuclear power | water crisis | severe weather | climate

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.

For story: The Achilles heel of nuclear power
28 Comments | Post a Comment

Uranium supply

That other Achilles heel is the limited supply of cheap (!) Uranium. You can't economicly extract Uranium from granite or the oceans etc.

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...

by 314159265 at 4:59 AM on 31 Oct 2007

Silly, silly anti-nuke claims

Everyone knows at this point why global warming exists - the excessive carbon produced by coal poweer plants that replaced those unbuilt nuclear power polants blocked by the anti-nukes. Now is the silly idea that water will become so scarce that nuclear plants will have difficulty operating. Sorry, but one of the prime considerations in siting a water cooled nuclear plant is that water be available. Duh! And why does this bozo think that the miniscule temperature increases that will appear over the next several decades is going to severely impact ambient water's cooling capabilities? The only problems that ever arise do so in the depth of a hot summer spell. An average temp increase of even 30 years worth of global warming would have an almost unmeasurable impact on that water's coolant capabilities. The anti-nukes better go back to their pathetic fear-mongering campaign, although from the latest polls, nuclear power is favored by a strong majority, who realize how ant-nuke activists have been the cause of global warming for the past 30 years.

by theBike45 at 5:01 AM on 31 Oct 2007

Water/oil

Water is really a problem for nuclear, coal, geothermal, fuel farming, and fuel from coal or tar sand schemes.

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 John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 6:07 AM on 31 Oct 2007

Nukes

Leakage into ground water from nukes and fuel and waste processing plants, like the one in Paducha Ky that is leaking into the Ohio River underground, is contaminating our water supply.

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 John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 6:21 AM on 31 Oct 2007

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

1 Convicted Of Hiding Nuke-Plant Problem
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.

by gzuckier at 8:27 AM on 31 Oct 2007
[ Parent ]

We agree it will be at least a wedge

First, I want to acknowledge that Joseph Romm describes a need for considerably more than the 7 wedges often mentioned to stabilize GHG emissions (well it would have a few years ago). It seems to me that if we are to reduce anywhere near enough by 2050, more than 12 wedges are needed.

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

by Karen Street at 8:51 AM on 31 Oct 2007

One Minute It's One Thing....

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.

by jabailo at 9:15 AM on 31 Oct 2007

A change in environment? Just adjust the design.

There are no water problems with nuclear power that can't be overcome. Water temperatures too high? Design for using more water. Fresh water at a premium? Either use waste water, domestic water, sea water, or no water at all.

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.

by Matt G at 9:17 AM on 31 Oct 2007

Not to Completely Blow the Author's Premise Out

of the water, so to speak, but there is nothing intrinsic about nuclear plants (or any steam-cycle plant) requiring ANY external water to cool them. Many of them were designed to use lots of water because it was cheaper than designing them to use less or none at all, just as it is cheaper to design an outboard motor to draw cooling water directly from the river, lake, or ocean the boat is operating in than to tack on a radiator. Many nuclear plants have cooling towers that dramatically reduce the amount of water required and the proposed third reactor at the North Anna nuclear plant in Virginia would be air-cooled, like a car engine.

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.

by gumsh0e at 9:57 AM on 31 Oct 2007

Wind, then hydro

Right, in the short term, wind is more limited by hot weather than hydro, thanks for catching my mistake.

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

by Karen Street at 10:12 AM on 31 Oct 2007

PV effectiveness v. temperature

A quick search turned this up.

by Matt G at 12:18 PM on 31 Oct 2007

nukes and all

All of the different kinds of electricity production are going to have its drawbacks. How could they not, there is a lot of work being done in those things, and that has physical consequences.

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.

by trock at 1:03 PM on 31 Oct 2007

The Reasons Nuclear Plants Were Cancelled

were largely tied to the 1973 and subsequent Oil Crises. The Oil Embargo triggered high inflation that lasted many years. That made financing nuclear plants difficult. It also resulted in a recession that reduced the projected demand for new capacity. For some countries, like France and Japan, concerns over the lack of domestic energy resources outweighed the immediate economic ones and they built up their nuclear fleets in response. The United States, on the other hand, has abundant coal and ready access to natural gas, so it only made economic sense to choose them over nuclear when the decision to cut projects was made. The past few decades have seen tame inflation rates, and the Fed is constantly learning from past mistakes, but the current sub-prime mortgage mess has yet to fully play out and there is admittedly always the potential for something to occur that throws the economy into an inflationary skid again.

by gumsh0e at 1:31 PM on 31 Oct 2007
[ Parent ]

Warm PVs

Thanks for the link. It appears climate change will lower solar production significantly on warm days in the US South in future summmers, not to mention Dubai.

Karen Street

by Karen Street at 1:46 PM on 31 Oct 2007

PVs Affected by Smog?

I believe haze and smog often accompany heat waves because of a lack of wind to blow away. For urban PV arrays, I suspect it could also have an effect.

by gumsh0e at 1:58 PM on 31 Oct 2007
[ Parent ]

Trock

For your reference - nuclear heat rejection options (maybe there should be a post on this?):

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.

by Matt G at 2:03 PM on 31 Oct 2007

Waste

Where will all you neo-con nuclear hugger nutbags put the waste from 1000 new nuclear plants? After 50+ years of nuclear industry there is still no safe and permanent way of disposing the waste. It just piles up in temporary repositories.

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?

by elbarto at 6:19 PM on 31 Oct 2007

Spent-fuel disposition and dry-cask storage

Elbarto wrote: Where [...] put the waste from 1000 new nuclear plants?

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.

by Nucbuddy at 7:44 PM on 31 Oct 2007
[ Parent ]

Degree of dificulty?

"thanks for catching my mistake."

Zero point zero!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:06 AM on 01 Nov 2007

Waste

Yes buddy, the rad waste (and leakage)storage is no problem. It's stored in fat cells near our reproductive organs, for maximum genetic mutation effect.

Helps evolution along you know. Now if nuclear power fans believed in evolution, you would have another talking point.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:09 AM on 01 Nov 2007

Giant sucking sound

Any powerplant that uses "open system" cooling is bad because it effectively strains out all the natural living stuff, like fish, juvenile fish, and fish eggs, and sends the now sterile water back into the receiving water. Sometime an oxidant (bleach) and anti-scale compounds (phosphorus) are added for good measure.

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

by Sam Wells at 7:54 AM on 01 Nov 2007

What us neo-con nuclear hugger nutbags have in

mind for the spent fuel (aka "waste") long term is to burn it. Although the fuel can be reprocessed and reused in the current light-water reactor designs, there are limitations. Fast reactors, on the other hand, can burn the fuel down to the nub, so to speak, including the long-lived isotopes, such that only relatively short-lived radioactive ashes remain. The waste from those reactors will decay exponentially down to nothing in just a couple centuries. Yucca Mountain is safe, it just isn't approved. Rather than being a "dump", I view it as more like a warehouse.

by gumsh0e at 8:39 AM on 01 Nov 2007

Plutonium - friend of the Earth and saviour of all

Yes of course, because the world needs more plutonium.

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...

by elbarto at 4:30 PM on 01 Nov 2007
[ Parent ]

n

Elbarto wrote: there is nowhere to put the thousands of tonnes of high level waste current sitting in "sealed" drums of questionable long term integrity.

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"?

by Nucbuddy at 6:07 PM on 01 Nov 2007
[ Parent ]

GHG disaster increases wind

More energy trapped in the atmosphere means more storms and more extreme weather events. that means more wind. Energy available in the wind increases with the cube of wind speed.

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 John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 11:03 PM on 01 Nov 2007

There are lots of ways to design nuclear reactors.

Some lend themselves to weapons-grade plutonium production more than others. For example, light water reactors, which are the type most often used for electricity production, are not proliferation threats. The world's governments are concerned about Iran's uranium centrifuges, which are buried deep underground to fend off attacks. But Iran is also building a conventional light water power reactor that nobody talks or cares about because extracting bomb-grade plutonium from them is somewhere between impractical and impossible. Likewise, several years ago the United States, Japan, and South Korea offered to build a light water reactor in North Korea in exchange for dismantling their graphite-moderated reactor, which is where North Korea got their plutonium.

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?

by gumsh0e at 8:13 AM on 02 Nov 2007
[ Parent ]

Amazingdrx said

"More energy trapped in the atmosphere means more storms and more extreme weather events. that means more wind. Energy available in the wind increases with the cube of wind speed."

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.

by gumsh0e at 8:31 AM on 02 Nov 2007
[ Parent ]

"What's next?"

Go back to square one. Nuclear power is too expensive. Much more expensive than wind.

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 John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 6:31 AM on 03 Nov 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.