Nuke Plants In Europe Power Down As Global Warming Dries Up Cooling Rivers

[bananas]

crosspost from GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1713370

Nuke Plants In Europe Power Down As Global Warming Dries Up Cooling Rivers

This really shows why nuclear power can not be the future solution to energy in a warmer world. France suddenly has to IMPORT electricity.

A four-year drought has dried up the river water needed to cool the reactors.

<snip>

[benburch]

1. Nonsense! Total nonsense.

When you do not have a river you build a cooling tower.

[Oreo]

2. The cooling towers need water though

Usually a lake or river is used to do the cooling. If that dries up it takes A LOT of water to do the cooling... too much to pipe in.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/systems/ct.htm

[benburch]

5. You can build a dry cooling tower system.

They are just larger than wet towers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower

[Oreo]

8. Thanks Ben

I didn't know there was such a beast.

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/17th_congress/2_1_01.asp


The Largest Dry Cooled Combined Cycle Power Plant in the World: 1200 MWe
Trakya CCPP (Turkey)

[benburch]

10. Even a wet tower system requires only ~5% of the water of a direct system.

Once-through cooling into a river or sea or lake has many problems with inlet blockage and outlet pollution as well.

[NNadir]

6. If all of the water disappears, there will be NO power production, nor

any need for power.

It will make all water systems useless, including toilets.

Although the anti-nuclear case depends wholly on nuclear exceptionalism (plus a healthy dollop of ignorance about the second law of thermodynamics), I note that global climate change drying up rivers will have many consequences other than causing some nuclear plants to power down.

Thermal pollution is a well known feature of the only option to nuclear power which is, as it was yesterday, as it was 10 years ago, and as it will be in forty years - coal.

It is wholly unsurprising that yet again we find nuclear opponents attempting to create a case of nuclear exceptionalism yet again to appeal for more coal, which is, of course a positive feedback loop case.

As I have presented over and over and over, the magical renewable future is not taking place in Germany. What is happening in Germany is more coal, which means more CO₂ and less opportunity for saving our ignorant asses.

In fact the elimination of rivers will make the only exajoule scale renewable form of energy - that would be hydroelectricity - useless. Unlike dams, nuclear power plants can be retrofitted with cooling systems like the one that operates the Palo Verde nuclear station in Arizona, a desert. In fact, Arizona doesn't produce - isn't this amazing - all that much solar energy.

Does this demonstrate conclusively that hydroelectricity is not a solution to global climate change?

What about, as in 2003, when the heat wave involved stagnant air? Does this indicate that wind power is not a solution to global climate change?

France will not need nuclear power if the country is so dehydrated that no cooling water is required.

It's not like there is a single exajoule in Europe, other than nuclear energy, that can take up this slack without adding to the burden of carbon dioxide in the air.

Now let's look at what all nuclear opponents need to ignore: Data.

In 2003, as is well known among people concerned with global climate change, Europe experienced a huge drought, causing some French nuclear power plants to power down. Fifteen thousand people in France died, more than died in the WTC disaster by a factor of 7. The amount of nuclear energy produced in France was nonetheless, 1.5 exajoules, electricity. (Primary energy was higher of course.)

On the entire planet there is still not one exajoule of solar PV energy.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

As this table shows, the nuclear capacity of France is about 2 exajoules, running flat out.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table64n.xls

In fact in 2003, the year of an enormous heat wave not of France's doing, France produced more nuclear power than it did the year before.


(This is a different situation than when one appeals to magical solar watts.)

Thus the French nuclear plants ran at 75% of rated capacity. Except for coal plants, there are few power plants on the planet that run so close to nameplate capacity. (Solar runs between 10 and 20, wind at 30 to 40, natural gas at 30 to 90.)

Once again, if you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

[benburch]

7. In fairness to natural gas turbine systems...

...they only run when they MUST because the fuel is *so* expensive. They are reactive load-levellers. However, in cases where they were required for peak demand beyond the capacity of larger plants, they turn in impressive up-times.

[NNadir]

11. Yes, but many, if not most, gas plants are designed for peak loading.

Many natural gas plants run at high thermal efficiency too, which people sometimes use to obfuscate that natural gas is a net contributor to global climate change.

Even at 60% efficiency, it still is true that carbon dioxide is still a form of waste associated with it, carbon dioxide being a waste that no one knows how to address.

Nuclear power plants are very poorly suited for addressing peak loads because typically they have lag times in powering up after powering down because of xenon poisoning. Also the high capital cost for nuclear plants requires that they be used to the maximal loading.

This suggests an excellent synergy between nuclear and solar power. (The head of the NREL, Larry Kazmierski has been quoted on this synergy and many others have noted it.) This of course depends on solar power being more than the hype that surrounds it, and actually becoming available on an exajoule scale.

France however has deliberately over built its nuclear capacity to allow for some peak nuclear reserve.

[benburch]

14. Exactly my point.

But you cannot ding them on not producing their rated capacity. They are great plants, generally, and very well designed, but they were never intended to produce their peak capacity for very long at a time.

[NNadir]

17. I was not "dinging" them I think at least not on their capacity...

...utilization. Specifically I was not trying to imply they were unreliable. If I wasn't clear on that, I apologize. I do know why these plants are built and why they operate, though.

I don't think of any fossil fuel plant as "great" under the circumstances.

Nuclear power cannot replace gas, at least until hydrogen producing plants make things like DME synthesis (preferably from biomass or air derived carbon) possible, in which case the gas infrastructure will become environmentally acceptable for the first time ever.

In France, they have displaced some gas capacity by over building nuclear capacity, but I'm not sure that this is an economically viable option since capital cost represents the bulk of nuclear generating costs.

It seems to me that gas plants operate, at least in part, exactly when there is a lot of sun, when air conditioning demand is high. This is the real niche for solar energy at least in appropriate climates. (The real niche for solar power, in spite of what some people want to tell you, does not at all involve nuclear power.)

However given that solar energy is still largely a trivial source of energy, the problem of displacing gas is difficult. We can use less gas by substituting some gas applications, like space heating and cooking, with electricity. But the phase out of gas will be difficult.

Gas is the least noxious of the three fossil fuels, but it is still noxious all the same. Combined cycle plants do prevent us from burning as much gas as we might, but combined cycle plants do emit carbon dioxide all the same.

Wind power, unfortunately is available when the need for air conditioning is low, when there is a cooling breeze. The situation of course does not apply when hot winds blow, as is the case in the newly forming deserts of Europe.

[kestrel91316]

22. "It will make all water systems useless, including toilets." Well,

SOME of us clever people will be using sawdust bucket toilets........

Dumping our waste into drinking water has always been an insane idea and wasteful belong belief. Time to stop.

[bananas]

4. 15,000 people died in France in the 2003 heat wave

Workers were standing outside hosing down the containment domes.
It's been three years, I'm surprised they haven't upgraded the cooling systems.

[jpak]

3. Is France importing magical solar electricity from Germany

and mystical wind power from Denmark?????

:evilgrin:

[benburch]

9. Nope.

Because laudable as those efforts are, they are still only a TINY fraction of the power usage of those nations.

[jpak]

12. Germany and Denmark generate 6 and >20% of their electricity from wind,

respectively.

and Germany's 2300 MW of PV capacity ain't no slouch either...

:hi:

[benburch]

13. But not enough to export at all.

And not available 24/7. You MUST have reactive load levelers or you have no power grid. You have to have the ability to supply power on a hot, windless night.

Nuclear gives you that, and without adding to the CO2 burden of the planet.

[jpak]

18. Denmark regularly exports wind power to Norway

during periods where wind generation exceeds Danish demand. When Danish wind power generation (>3000 MW peak capacity) drops, they import Norwegian/Swedish hydropower.

Denmark also has >800 MW of baseload biomass power capacity. Copenhagen alone has a 570 MWe CHP plant (sited in a wind farm) that provides the city with most of its district heating needs. There dozens of smaller community biomass CHP plants scattered about the country that provide continuous power as well.

Denmark also has ~60 MW of community and farm biogas generating capacity that provides for intermediate loads.

A totally "windless night" where all wind power generation ceased would be a truly rare meteorological phenomenon in Denmark (or Germany, or anywhere else for that matter). Whereas wind speeds at the surface boundary layer may drop to zero, there is always some wind aloft (50-150 m above the ground).

I worked at a Danish marine biology lab back in the '90's. There were three wind turbines located there (50 kW Vestas mounted on 50 m towers). On mornings where there was no perceptible wind at the surface, the turbines were magically operating. I never saw them cease operation the whole time I was there. A truly mystical experience indeed.

:evilgrin:

In addition to 2300+ MW of peak PV capacity (which would produce power at 2300+ MW for several hours around local solar noon), Germany has 1400 MW of biomass baseload and 500+ MW of biogas power capacity that can satisfy intermediate power demands.

Combined, those renewable energy resources alone (not counting Germany's 18,400 MW of wind or 4500 MW of hydropower capacity) can satisfy base, intermediate and peaking loads equivalent to a 1400 MW nuclear plant, and a 500 MW fossil-fired intermediate and a 2300 MW fossil-fired peaking plant - and provide that power 24/7 even on hot windless greenhouse nights.

And, unlike a nuclear power plants, PV modules and wind turbines don't require water to operate. The smaller (<<20 MW) German and Danish biomass and biogas plants are for the most part district heating facilities that use their "waste" heat to provide hot water to communities and farms. Their external cooling water demands are low or nonexistent.

Germany and Denmark are going to generate 20-60% of their electricity from renewables by 2020.

And, if the current emergency is typical of summers in the future, the French will be importing mystical megawatts of renewable electricity from Germany and Denmark when their nukes go down...

[benburch]

19. You've not been in the America Midwest much.

We have any number of still or nearly still nights with hellish heat and humidity in the summer...

And the consequent huge demand on electric power for air cooling.

ALSO, 20-60%... That means the 40-80% are supplied by CO2 producing coal, isn't that right? At what epoch will they have 100% of their energy from non-CO2 producing sources at all hours?

Until then, they are killing our planet.

And nuclear reactors could give them 100% in ten years without question.

And could do the same worldwide.

[jpak]

20. No - I live in the Deep South where we have "hellish" heat a lot

And wind speed profiles in the Midwest and South follow the same trends with altitude as they do in Denmark and Germany.

That's MET 101...

You can have zero wind speed at the surface boundary layer and 10+ mph winds at 150 m - enough to maintain wind turbine operations.

The Midwest BTW is leading the nation in US wind farm start-ups.

And the Midwest has no biogas or biomass resources to generate electricity at night??? Don't think so, in fact most of the agricultural biogas plants I'm aware of are located in the Farm Belt.

Also, peak air conditioning demand closely follows the daily solar cycle. PV modules can easily reduce peak AC demand - especially in the hellish South and Midwest.

Germany 100% nuclear in ten years without question????

Finland's new loss leader nuclear power plant is 1 year into construction and already 1 year behind schedule - not a good sign.

You can build a 100 MW PV production facility in one year - without question. The Germans are building them all the time and on schedule.

You can install 800 MW of PV capacity in one year without question - Germany did it last year and will probably install 1000 MW this year and even more in 2008.

You can build a 200 MW wind farm in one year - it's done all the time in many countries (even in Germany).

The same for CHP biomass and biogas plants.

Germany 20% by 2020 is a target.

They could generate 100% renewable by then and then some.

There is no law of physics that prevents them from doing so.

No question about it - and world wide too...

(but unfortunately, there isn't enough uranium available to go 100% nuclear worldwide...ever)

[kestrel91316]

23. Ben, all we need to do is put the wind power plants in WY and ND.

Never any lack of wind there.............

[NNadir]

15. And now, for fun, let's look at what the article actually says.

The headline of this thread reads thusly, "Nuke Plants In Europe Power Down As Global Warming Dries Up Cooling Rivers."

This title is pretty illustrative. Let's follow the links to the original article, which is here:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34051

Let's start with the first two words. "Nuke plants."

First we have to scroll through nearly 3/4 of the article - which is about something called "global climate change" that is caused by an emission called "carbon dioxide" that is actually minimized using nuclear power - to find the first mention of nuclear power plants.


Here is the first such reference:

The heat is also taking its toll on agriculture, and affecting the generation of electricity, especially in nuclear power plants.

The lack of fresh water for the nuclear plants' cooling systems has led German private electricity suppliers to slow down their generators.

Of course, there is no information about what is happening in Germany's coal plants - coal being the primary new source of energy being built in Germany now that they have ruled out further nuclear power. As a person who is aware of the second law of thermodynamics though, I will tell you that the thermal output is still there. All power plants, nuclear and otherwise, need cooling water. (I had a thread here recently showing the cooling towers of the sixth largest greenhouse emitting plant in Europe, a British coal plant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x60818

So in spite of the contention clearly implied by the thread title that this is a special case limited to nuclear power plants we see that the article actually says the situation is effecting all generation.

The next item is in the title: "Power down."

Let the reader decide. Clearly the title seems to imply, especially coupled with the words in the OP, that the nuclear plants of France and Germany are totally unavailable.

The above reference to the German plants, of course, says "slow down" which is something quite different that "shut down."

Now France. The article says:

In France, the state-owned Electricité de France (EdF) was allowed to continue to drain hot water from the cooling system into rivers, although the water temperatures exceeded the limits imposed by environmental authorities. But output has had to be lowered.

Of course France has zero coal plants to compare, so the omission is somewhat less disingenuous.

But didn't the opening post title tell us that global warming had dried up the rivers? What rivers then are the cooling waters pouring into? Are cooling waters from coal and gas plants in Germany not exceeding their temp limits? If France started using coal again - if they banned nuclear power in order to build new coal facilities as Germany proposes to do, would the coal plants not also exceed the thermal output, especially modern supercritical water coal plants? Does the second law of thermodynamics not apply if you dump millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air along with hot water into the rivers?

If the plants are shut down because of the dried up rivers, why then are they still putting out heat?

And what does the article say about the renewable panacea that is used to obscure the new German coal plants. Let's read:

In Italy, hydroelectric plants have had to slow down due to a shortage of water in rivers.

European agriculture has also been hit by the heat wave and the drought.

In Germany, president of the association of farmers Gerd Sonnleitner told the press that this year's harvest on cereals would be 10 to 15 percent lower than in 2004, for which figures are available. "We had excellent expectations, but the heat and the drought have destroyed them."

I thought, from the title of the thread, the whole article was about nuclear power and not about renewables like hydroelectric and biofuels.

This thread is a perfect example of the almost Rovian spin that the anti-nuclear pro-coal squad employs, a perfect example of "if you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up."

Global climate change is real. It is an immediate crisis. The solution to global climate change does not involve more coal. Of course, there is a subset of people who think you, the reader, are stupid. But you are not stupid. You know a distortion when you see one. You can read for yourself.

[benburch]

16. Amen.

And that 2300 MW of power that Germany produces at noon on a clear sunny day?

ONE nuclear power station with two reactors produces almost exactly that amount; http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/braidwood.html

And produces it on windless, hot summer evenings (we have too many of those here) and days of high winds and storms when wind turbines are forced to "feather" and solar panels produce a tiny fraction of their clear weather output.

[philb]

21. Progress Energy coal plant in Florida in trouble similarly

They've applied for a permit to put in more cooling towers since the Gulf temperature is increasing and the
cooling water released can't raise temperatures beyond a certain level per the permit. GW is raising the temp above the
permit level irregardless of what the plant heat does.

Temperature at the Pensacola NOAA buoy site has been over 89 degrees this week, higher than all last year
Similar for the Tampa site near the plant.
http://www.flcv.com/GMdata.html


water temp increases in other coastal areas per NOAA buoy site measurements:
www.flcv.com/sstfla.html