Catfish, Swans – and Monticello Nuclear Plant

Uh-oh. Here’s a benefit of nuclear energy that falls under the heading of unintended consequences:

The shutdown of Xcel Energy’s Monticello Nuclear Power Plant on Friday is hurting fish and wildlife along the Mississippi River.

The flow of warm water from the plant stopped after the unplanned shutdown, and by Saturday the water temperature downstream had dropped from 75 degrees to just 35 degrees, said Joe Stewig, Department of Natural Resources area fisheries manager.

Wait, what? The plant output raised the temperature of the water 40 degrees? That in itself would be deadly to all kinds of flora and fauna – it would seem – but …

I asked NEI’s William Skaff, director of policy management, about this – NEI did some work on water policy awhile ago but did not address this particular aspect. Bill said that it’s unlikely the plant’s water discharge could cause a 40 degree difference, but that Monticello may well be permitted to discharge warmer water – if not that much warmer - because it can be beneficial to animal and plant life in the rivers. He gave the example of manatees in Florida, which thrive in the warmer water emitted from energy facilities.

Indeed, as the Minneapolis Star Tribune story notes about Monticello, a plant may well be charged fines by the state for going offline and thus altering the temperature of the water. Bill said this can occur even during planned outages. I assume this is true of all thermal energy plants, including coal and natural gas, so the issue doesn’t “belong” to nuclear facilities specifically. It is not a particular benefit of nuclear energy, as I implied at the start, nor is it strictly true that it is an unintended consequence. It appears the state wants to keep plants up and running to keep the warmer water flowing even when they can be spelled by other facilities, hence the fine. And this episode is not a fishy apocalypse – the story reports 30 dead fish found along the shore – leading to the conclusion that the state has traded the occasional plant outage for a healthier aquatic ecosystem generally. That is a benefit.

---

The story, while focusing on catfish, also addresses the colder water’s impact on swans:

Meanwhile, about 2,000 trumpeter swans usually winter in the open water near Monticello, but without the influx of warm water from the plant that open area has shrunk and become slushy, and some swans could leave, said Lori Naumann of the DNR’s nongame wildlife program.

…

Jim Lawrence, who lives on the river and feeds the swans, said he’s not concerned. There are other open-water spots in the region where the swans will go.

“I think they’ll be fine,’’ Lawrence said. “We will have fewer birds, possibly. But they’ll come on back.’’

So, no apparent swan fatalities, but I guess the combination of Monticello’s outage and the recent blast of winter weather proved less than fortuitous for them as well as the catfish. I suspect the cold weather might prove to have been determinative in these outcomes – the area around Monticello was 15 degrees below zero this morning. Still, we’ll be happy to see the plant return to service.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog