Skip to main content

On Nuclear Energy and Drought

Yesterday, the Drudge Report fronted an AP story by Mitch Weiss entitled, "Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns". To say the least, we're just a little exasperated around here, especially since we've gone to the trouble over and over again of letting folks know that water use isn't solely an issue for nuclear plants, it's an issue for any kind of electrical generating station that uses the steam cycle. Further, despite the claims of anti-nuclear activists, we don't believe this is a major issue.

The best short answer to this comes from Dr. Michael Ivanco, who wrote the following in a letter to the editor that was published by the Hamilton Spectator back in August 2006:
The impact of drought in Europe on electricity supply is not a "nuclear" problem, as the writer suggests, rather it affects all electricity generating stations that use a steam cycle: nuclear, coal, gas and oil.

These account for over 80 per cent of all electricity generated on our planet. While water shortages have caused some thermo-electric plants to scale back production, it is important to note that they have not been required to shut down.

During the heat wave that hit Europe in the summer of 2003, by contrast, the contribution of wind-generated electricity to the electrical grids was virtually zero, since the wind did not blow.

While the overall output of nuclear plants may vary slightly due to other weather conditions, it will not drop to zero as some renewable sources do.

The single largest nuclear facility in North America is in the middle of the desert in Arizona and it does not suffer from any drought-related setbacks, simply because water conservation was built into its design.

There is no technical reason preventing future plants from being built to minimize water usage.
Ok? Yet over and over again, packs of reporters continue to revel in their scientific illiteracy, by reporting the same talking points from anti-nuclear activists over and over again. Here is a list of all the posts we've done over the past few years concerning this issue:

NPR, the Steam Cycle and Nuclear Energy
On Nuclear Energy, Cooling and the Steam Cycle
Nuclear Energy, Increased Temperatures and the Truth About the Steam Cycle
The Truth About Nuclear Power and Increased Water Temperatures
Countering More Propaganda

Are these reporters lazy? Are they stupid? Is it a little bit of both? Who knows?

More on this momentarily. Stay tuned, you don't want to miss this.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Yeah, that must be it. Reporters are lazy and stupid. Be sure to mention that to them often.

No wonder this industry isn't getting better press.

Instead of killing the messenger on a blog page almost no one outside the industry reads, why not focus on getting your message around?
bryfry said…
Lazy? Stupid? I vote for a lot of both.

Apparently, they're stubborn and persistent as well.
Anonymous said…
Still declining to post comments that disagree with you, I see.
David Bradish said…
"Instead of killing the messenger on a blog page almost no one outside the industry reads, why not focus on getting your message around?"

So we can't criticize the reporters but you can belittle our blog. Double standard?

Part of getting our message out is by posting blogs. That way it will get picked up by Google and other search engines for people who really want to know about the issue.
Randal Leavitt said…
I dont think that "lazy" or "stupid" applies, but "commissioned" might.
Starvid said…
Or plain "anti-nuclear".
Anonymous said…
"So we can't criticize the reporters but you can belittle our blog. Double standard?"

"Lazy" and "stupid" is not criticism. It's ad hominem.

You can say whatever you want, it's a free country and (at least for now) internet. But you can't have it both ways, i.e., whining about the poor treatment the nuclear industry gets in the press while at the same time calling them lazy and stupid. How does that help our industry with the media?
Eric McErlain said…
With all due respect, we've been dealing with this issue over and over again with the media over the last 18 months. As you can see from the above post, we've stressed over and over again that this is not a situation that is unique to nuclear power plants. Yet time after time, our comments are completely ignored and the same exact charge, without any significant adjustments, is leveled repeatedly. This even after we communicate this point directly to reporters without fail.

In short, we have been focusing on getting our message out. And on this issue at least, plenty of reporters seem to be focusing on parroting anti-nuclear talking points without vetting them at all.

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…