Current nuclear technology will not help if climate continues to heat up
Many politicians and others have promoted nuclear power as a means of addressing climate change since reactors emit no greenhouse gases or noxious pollutants. Setting aside for the moment the issue of what do with radioactive waste (by no means a trivial issue) there are other issues with nuclear power that will prevent it from being a panacea.Nuclear fission reactors of the type commonly used today require huge amounts of incoming fresh water in order to control the temperature of the reactor. With atmospheric temperatures rising, so are the temperatures of surface water that is drawn into power plants. Since the cooling systems are designed based on a minimum temperature difference for a given flow rate, if the water temperature is rising they can't adequately control the reactor.
During the French heat wave in 2003 seventeen plants had to be shutdown or slowed because of high water temperatures. As the demand for power increases with the electrification of vehicles we will need to develop alternative power sources such as solar, tidal, wind and geothermal that don't rely on fuels and are less dependent on cooling.
[Source: TreeHugger]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
susan.kraemer 3:13PM (6/25/2007)
Same thing in Australia: record droughts (like we will have in the West from climate change) have led to coal power (also very water intensive) stations being shut down
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/1/03336/67504
We close towns, stop growing food and stop making electricity. And thats the weather news from the future.
Reply
Mike Z 10:14PM (6/24/2007)
This is a dumb post.
The same precludes Geothermal and Solar Thermal all the same.
The issue with warm water discharge is a common issue shared by all steam turbine power plants, so the fact the the article targeted nuclear is really pointless.
Reply
Ron Fischer 10:30PM (6/24/2007)
The title is a bit misleading. It's more like "Current Nuclear Plants May Need Re-engineering for Global Warming". Engineering designs can handle this, existing plants can likely be retrofitted (yes, the cost may be too great). The IHT article referened by Treehugger points out that N-Plants on coastlines generally aren't having a problem. So, yes, issue identified, but authors get no points for analysis.
Reply
Scatter 7:04AM (6/25/2007)
But coastal power plants have their own problems associated with sea level rises which are a major unknown quantity at the moment.
I wonder what effect this is going to have in countries like China which are undergoing massive expansion of all types of centralised power station but also suffering some of the worst droughts in recent history. The competition for scarce water supplies between thirsty power stations and agriculture is not going to be pretty.
Reply
Dave 10:19AM (6/25/2007)
During peak hours of summer, when A/C units are running full blast, and when this claimed cooling water issue would be at its worst, solar energy production is at its best and certainly can help with peak loads.
But properly engineered nukes are still our best bet for baseline electricity production.
And perhaps our granchildren will benefit from the multinational fusion research project in France.
Reply
Tim 10:37AM (6/25/2007)
Nuclear fission is not renewable green power so don’t waste it! Cap the hyperbolic cooling towers. Use the updraft to power fans to generate more electricity. Use the differential temperature in the steam to run Stirling Engine generators. Then use the residual heat for greenhouses (plants love warm, moist air) and to grow algae for biofuels.
Reply
OhmExcited 3:35PM (6/25/2007)
This is one of the dumbest articles ever posted on ABG.
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 5:05PM (6/25/2007)
No. 5( Tim ) needs to be mod'ed up with some points.
But, the real problem with Nuclear is the issue of the Cost of the WASTE.
If you don't push that off on the tax payer, Solar is Cheaper.
Solar has just recently broken the 40% efficiency barrier.
Time to retro-fit some Detroit assembly lines?
Reply
Mike Z 5:37PM (6/25/2007)
Yeah 40% efficiency in terms of a space-rated solar cell. The complexity of the junctions could never be mass produced cheaply.
This is not to say that solar will never be cheap, but to bet on it as a sure thing is a poor idea.
The waste issue is a political one, not a economical one. Waste disposal represents about 10% of the total cost of a nuclear power plant, so that works out to be a minimal issue.
Reply