Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy and Water Use

By Eric McErlain
Earlier this week, the Premier of Queensland, Australia had this to say about new nuclear build in his country:
Peter Beattie says a study commissioned by the State Government shows nuclear plants use 25 per cent more water than coal fired stations.

He says it is water that is not available given the drought.

The Prime Minister has said he believes nuclear power is part of the solution to global warming, but Mr Beattie says there are better alternatives.

"What we need to do is be proactive and by that I mean we need to go out there and get clean coal technology and that's very important," he said.
Not a real surprise, as our friend Robert Merkel would tell us, as Australia sits on abundant reserves of coal (as well as uranium).

But this is the Blogosphere, and Beattie doesn't have the last word. And that's where we pick up with our friend Rod Adams:
What Mr. Beattie (a politician, not an engineer or scientist) fails to understand is that a "clean" coal plant would use at least 30-40% more water than today's typical coal stations because they would need to expend considerable quantities of power to capture, compress and transport CO2. Mr. Beattie's comment also does not take into account the other parts of the coal cycle that consume water, including coal washing to remove contaminants and water used to suppress coal dust in transportation systems.

I also cannot neglect the opportunity to mention that it is possible to design effective coolers for nuclear plants that do not use water at all. If the plant is a nuclear gas turbine, direct cooling with atmospheric air provides sufficient efficiency while eliminating the need to consume water to move the heat out of the system and into the surrounding environment. I just happen to know of a company (Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.) that anticipates using such coolers in atomic engines destined for arid areas.
Another anti-nuke fallacy debunked. Next!

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Paul Studier said…
The committee report is absurd on the face of it. All of Australia's major cities are near the ocean. Nukes can use ocean water for cooling.
November 1, 2006 at 3:43 PM
Matthew66 said…
Queensland has the world's largest coral reef (the Great Barrier Reef) extending for most of its eastern coast line. Any new power station proposing to draw water from, or discharge water to, the ocean would need to satisfy environmental authorities that any changes in water temperature or salinity would not damage the reef. This would be the case irrespective of the fuel being proposed.
November 1, 2006 at 3:57 PM
Sam Clifford said…
Beattie is a populist media tart; there's nothing going on in that head of his. His argument is complete hogwash, as you've pointed out. Australian politics (like most politics, I'd assume) is all about thinking up an solution in an area in which you have no training or experience and then attempting to commission a report to back your claims up. Beattie's got coal and John Howard's got nuclear.
November 1, 2006 at 4:59 PM
Anonymous said…
As I pointed out here, Beattie's opposition to nuclear energy is at least in part about about a) protectionism, and b) state government revenues, than principle. The water thing is a complete furphy as well; as was previously discussed on this blog, you don't have to use wet cooling towers for nukes.

I have been monitoring Australian nuclear issues, but there hasn't been much of interest lately. Wait until the release of the Prime Minister's enquiry report on the matter and it will come up again.
November 1, 2006 at 6:54 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more