We’ve all read about the drought in America’s Southeast, and if it doesn’t let up very quickly, some nuclear power stations may have to either cut back operations or shut down temporarily because of a lack of water.
An Alabama reactor had to shutdown for a brief period in the summer, and officials in the Southeast now say it is becoming a crisis.
Water is essential for the operation of a nuclear facility, primarily to cool used steam generated by the nuclear reactors which run the electricity-generating turbines.
Some plants recycle cooling water in what is known as a closed system, so that process doesn’t create a real water problem.
How much water does a plant use? The Harris reactor near Raleigh, N.C., draws 33 million gallons of water a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation in the cooling towers.
Duke’s McGuire plant near Charlotte, N.C. sucks up more than 1 billion gallons a day from Lake Norman, but most of that is returned to the source. The problem there, is that the lakes level is now 93.7 feet, down nearly 5 feet from a year ago. If it drops another foot, the plant may have to cease operations.
The ratepayer in the Southeast may have to eat some high rates if the trend continues. An energy analyst says replacement power would cost 10 times the going rate should plants shut down.
Source: MSNBC
Perfect opportunity for next gen closed cycle high temperature gas cooled reactors such as the PBMR.
This throws out the window of the political views that the solutions is atomic power plants and along with unproven clean coal technology when the water well runs dry due to climate change .
We need true competition within the market place.
The decision will lie with the paradigms shift in thinking against a centralized form of an energy delivery systems to an new approah of an de-centralized energy system.
Not one big power plant or one big oil company serving but the many of independent green technologies applications.
Wisdom2See
Thanks, Eric for the comment. I checked out the two blogs you listed, and was surprised at the defensive attitude of the bloggers.
I urge anyone who reads these comments to have a look and form their own opinion on the remarks. In any case, thank you for the comment.
Max
There are so many problems with this story it’s hard to know where to start. Follow these links to get the whole story this time, instead of one that demonstrates nothing but a basic misunderstanding of the science and engineering involved in these issues:
http://tinyurl.com/2db4d8
http://tinyurl.com/28mv9b
Right on, David.
Jim 47: I tend to agree with you on the population issue. As gruesome as it sounds, your “answers” may be the solution. History has proven that through war and pestilence we’ve managed not to overpopulate the earth. If everyone had lived and had families, we probably wouldn’t be here, or at least standing shoulder to shoulder on someone’s shoulders without a bite to eat or water to drink.
But hey, sex rules.
Thank you both for the comments.
And water shortages will also cut hydroelectric power, and/or increase rates for it. This is a real problem, which is why California’s nuclear plants are on the ocean.
Again – not that I want to keep flogging the dead horse, but I really feel that I need to – the problem isn’t nuclear power, or coal-fired, or water shortages, or anything else; the real problem is too many people on Planet Earth. Maybe war (and pestilence) really *is* the answer? Tongue-in-cheek, folks, but Mother Nature might not be that humorous.
Sounds like the Southeast is primed for some cost-effective, distributed renewable energy!