Visit the TCOE discussion board

January 24, 2008

Nuclear power is hydro power by at 12:07 PM on January 24, 2008.

Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns:

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 could 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.”

An Associated Press analysis of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines.

Because of the yearlong dry spell gripping the region, the water levels on those lakes and rivers are getting close to the minimums set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Over the next several months, the water could drop below the intake pipes altogether. Or the shallow water could become too hot under the sun to use as coolant.



An estimated 3 million customers of the four commercial utilities with reactors in the drought zone get their power from nuclear energy. Also, the quasi-governmental Tennessee Valley Authority, which sells electricity to 8.7 million people in seven states through a network of distributors, generates 30 percent of its power at nuclear plants.

While rain and some snow fell recently, water levels across the region are still well below normal. Most of the severely affected area would need more than a foot of rain in the next three months — an unusually large amount — to ease the drought and relieve pressure on the nuclear plants. And the long-term forecast calls for more dry weather.

At Progress Energy Inc., which operates four reactors in the drought zone, officials warned in November that the drought could force it to shut down its Harris reactor near Raleigh, according to documents obtained by the AP. The water in Harris Lake stands at 218.5 feet — just 3 1/2 feet above the limit set in the plant’s license.

Lake Norman near Charlotte is down to 93.7 feet — less than a foot above the minimum set in the license for Duke Energy Corp.’s McGuire nuclear plant. The lake was at 98.2 feet just a year ago.



“Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour,” said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co. “It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power — especially during the summer.”

At a nuclear plant, water is also used to cool the reactor core and to create the steam that drives the electricity-generating turbines. But those are comparatively small amounts of water, circulating in what are known as closed systems — that is, the water is constantly reused. Water for those two purposes is not threatened by the drought.

Instead, the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region’s reactors every day to cool used steam. Water sucked from lakes and rivers passes through pipes, which act as a condenser, turning the steam back into water. The outside water never comes into direct contact with the steam or any nuclear material.



Nuclear plants are subject to restrictions on the temperature of the discharged coolant, because hot water can kill fish or plants or otherwise disrupt the environment. Those restrictions, coupled with the drought, led to the one-day shutdown Aug. 16 of a TVA reactor at Browns Ferry in Alabama.

The water was low on the Tennessee River and had become warmer than usual under the hot sun. By the time it had been pumped through the Browns Ferry plant, it had become hotter still — too hot to release back into the river, according to the TVA. So the utility shut down a reactor.

It really is this simple: The climate changes triggered by global warming amount to a massive rewriting of the rules that governed how society does everything, and in particular will have profound effects on our production and consumption of energy.

The energy impacts will take three forms:

The electricity generating part of this mess is especially vexing, and I’m not sure how we get out of it, short of building dozens of thin film solar PV plants (with government loans, if needed) and flooding the market with dirt cheap solar panels, plus building wind, wave, and tidal plants at rates vastly higher than anything we’ve seen to date. It’s almost enough to make one, oh, I don’t know, write a book about it.

5 Responses to “Nuclear power is hydro power”

  1. Lou Says:

    And speaking of that whole “global warming is changing the rules of the game” thing, here’s what the American Geophysical Union has to say about it:

    The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

    During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

    With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

  2. Paul Says:

    Lou, you mentioned nuclear plant geographical location. Do you know anything about the feasibility of using salt water for thermoelectric generation?

  3. Lou Says:

    Paul: As far as I know, some nuclear power plants do use sea water (although I have no idea what percentage of them are cooled that way), so that would still leave coastal areas open to expansion for new thermoelectric power.

  4. Eric McErlain Says:

    While thermoelectric power generation and irrigation might be roughly equal in terms of water withdrawal, you need to make a distinction between that and actual water usage, as thermoelectric power generation typically returns a large share of the water it withdraws back into the environment. According to the last relevant stats that we’ve seen from 1995 provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, thermoelectric power generation accounts for only 3.3% of freshwater consumption in the U.S. while irrigation took up 80.6%. That’s a considerable difference.

    Even residential consumption is far higher according to the USGS stats I see. Again, looking back at the 1995 data, the most recent available, thermoelectric power consumed 3.8 billion gallons of water per day, while the residential sector consumed 6.68 billion gallons. Irrigation took up 81.7 billion gallons.

    These numbers come from U.S. Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, 1998.

  5. Lou Says:

    Eric: True enough, but if any thermo plant can’t get enough water (or cool enough water) to run, then it’s academic whether the water it would have drawn was returned or not. In this post I’m focused on the core issue of what it takes to keep electrons moving, as opposed to the broader issue of the sustainability of natural resources.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisers


blog advertising is good for you


Search

Archives

Other

Site links

Recent posts

Categories

Blogroll