Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy, Increased Temperatures and the Truth About the Steam Cycle

Summer is just around the corner, which means that an old anti-nuke talking point that was first used about a year ago is getting trotted out in the press again.

From the International Herald Tribune:
But there is a less well-known side of nuclear power: It 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.

If temperatures soar above average this summer - let alone steadily increase in years to come, as many scientists predict - many nuclear plants could face a dilemma: Either cut output or break environmental rules, in either case hurting their reputation with customers and the public.
For details on why this is not an insurmountable problem, click here and here for posts from our archives. Here's an excerpt from one of those posts by my friend Lisa Stiles:
It doesn't matter if you're burning uranium, coal, oil, or cow dung, anything that uses a steam cycle has the potential problem of exceeding discharge limits if temperatures are excessively warm. Since only about 1/3 of the heat is usable to turn a turbine, the waste heat has to go somewhere. To not have this problem you can:

--Not make the environmental regulations overly conservative
--Build a bigger heat sink
--Build a smaller plant
--Invent a thermodynamic cycle better than the ones the world's best minds have come up with in the past two centuries or so (and be sure to include my name on the patent).
Be sure to read the rest right now.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
I agree with Lisa's explanation all the way up to the point where she says "Invent a thermodynamic cycle better than the ones the world's best minds have come up with in the past two centuries or so (and be sure to include my name on the patent)."

Smaller, more distributed plants can help by effectively providing a larger heat sink per unit waste heat produced. Larger heat sinks work, and certainly changing the rules to allow hotter discharges work (it is certainly worth investigating, but there is a real risk to plant and animal life that must be understood.)

With regard to "better" thermodynamic cycles, there are others available that do not have as much of a problem in exceeding discharge limits. Combined cycle gas turbines and cogeneration plants that make better use of their plant's input heat have been around for many years. Since they obtain thermal efficiencies approaching 60% instead of the 33% common to the simple Rankine cycle used by conventional light water reactors, they have less waste to get rid of.

There is a distinct possibility that nuclear combined cycle or cogeneration plants will be available in the not too distant future - the PBMR out of South Africa may be a suitable base plant for such a development.
Anonymous said…
The issue with the French plants is that they use direct cooling with river water. The simple solution to this problem is to use a cooling tower, then there is no limitation from temperature increases to local bodies of water (rivers or lakes). This is the solution that is being implemented for the new ESBWR at North Anna, where there were concerns about too much additional heating of Lake Anna (which is an artificial lake built to cool the original reactors). Heat rejection is no problem if one uses cooling towers.
kconrad said…
Please tell me that the heat emitted from nuclear plants, through the cooling process does not add to the heating of our planet. There must be some way you all can rationalize that away, too.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…