Nuclear Power is vulnerable to Climate Change

[Rheghead]

Increasingly, nuclear power is looking very vulnerable to climate change and doubts are cast on its ability to cut carbon emissions which play the major part in causing it.

Nuclear plants are now having to shut down because the water which they use to cool the reactors is now too warm.

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-europea...e-climate.html

[ducati]

I'm not a technologist but couldn't you divert a miniscule amount of the power generated to pre-cool the water?

[nirofo]

Increasingly, nuclear power is looking very vulnerable to climate change and doubts are cast on its ability to cut carbon emissions which play the major part in causing it.

Nuclear plants are now having to shut down because the water which they use to cool the reactors is now too warm.

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-europea...e-climate.html

It's a pity they didn't continue with the proven home grown fast reactor technology that used sodium for it's cooling, do you remember the Dounreay PFR ?

[Rheghead]

It's a pity they didn't continue with the proven home grown fast reactor technology that used sodium for it's cooling, do you remember the Doureay PFR ?

A PFR would still be vulnerable to Climate Change as it would still need to be cooled by a source of natural water.

BTW Do you now acknowledge that the National Grid reduce power from conventional power plants when the wind increases? I think that video that I posted settled the point quite convincingly. (You probably won't though)

[oldchemist]

"While much of this water is "recycled," the power plants rely on consistent volumes of water, at a particular temperature, to prevent the turbines from overheating."

This is bollocks - the cooling water is used to condense steam after it has been through the turbine before it goes back to the heat exchanger or to the reactor to be reheated ie it cools the reactor. There may be a small volume used to cool turbine bearings. I would take anything else in the article with a bucket load of salt..

[Mystical Potato Head]

"While much of this water is "recycled," the power plants rely on consistent volumes of water, at a particular temperature, to prevent the turbines from overheating."

This is bollocks - the cooling water is used to condense steam after it has been through the turbine before it goes back to the heat exchanger or to the reactor to be reheated ie it cools the reactor. There may be a small volume used to cool turbine bearings. I would take anything else in the article with a bucket load of salt..

The headline of the thread is bollocks,the link refers to ALL thermoelectric plants,nuclear and fossil fuel alike.That doesnt make such an intersting headline though does it.
Its the same with the "A PFR would still be vulnerable to climate change as it would still need to be cooled by a source of natural water"
Where exactly on the secondary circuit is this cooling vulnerability?

[Rheghead]

"While much of this water is "recycled," the power plants rely on consistent volumes of water, at a particular temperature, to prevent the turbines from overheating."

This is bollocks - the cooling water is used to condense steam after it has been through the turbine before it goes back to the heat exchanger or to the reactor to be reheated ie it cools the reactor. There may be a small volume used to cool turbine bearings. I would take anything else in the article with a bucket load of salt..

Whilst you are basically correct with the gubbins, it is irrelevant, there is nothing in what you say that negates the assertion that rising climate temperatures will reduce the cooling efficiency and thus increase the number of occasions that reactors need to be shutdown. Unpredictable outages would require immense amounts of back up and expense on to consumers.

If you disagree then I suggest you contact whoever is concerned to put their minds at rest. But please report back and let us know how you get on.

[nirofo]

Rheghead
You work on a pressurised water reactor system, (PWR) that uses super heated water in it's primary circuit to passively super heat the water in it's secondary circuit in order to produce high pressure steam to drive the turbines. The cooling water for this reactor system is pumped directly from the sea and will cool the reactor core suffiently regardless of the sea temperature which itself is subject to varying temperatures depending on the tidal flows and the time of the year. If this isn't so then how do these systems manage to operate throughout the world with it's varying sea temperatures, bear in mind we're only talking about a few degrees variation in sea temperature, hardly enough to create a problem for a well designed reactor system. The water used for cooling on other types of reactor system normally comes from either the sea, rivers or lakes each with it's own varying temperatures, the slight variation if any caused by global warming would hardly make any difference to the smooth operation of a well designed nuclear reactor, which in any case would have been designed initially to take any small anomalies in cooling water temperatures into account.

[secrets in symmetry]

A few points:

1. The original article is about inland power stations which are cooled by water from rivers. There is no mention of power stations cooled by lakes, or of coastal stations. None of those studies are of power stations in Britain.
2. In my experience (and opinion), Phys.org isn't a very reliable source of scientific news or opinion. The author of the linked article has extrapolated the results of the paper beyond what was studied. The Phys.org article talks about power stations cooled by water from lakes, the original article is restricted to rivers only. It's also a little sensational.
3. The OP takes things way too far beyond the Phys.org article. It's pretty poor by your standards Rheghead.
4. As far as I know, all of the UK's nuclear stations are coastal, so the study doesn't apply to any of them. This is true of nuclear stations in many (perhaps even most?) other countries.
5. The study does apply to many of Britain's inland coal-fired stations (although Britain is predicted (by some) to get wetter as global warming hits).

[Dadie]

Saw phys.org and lost interest straight away!
Sensationist headline panic!
Like the News of the world was!

[Kenn]

Thanks nirofo an SiS (Well no blood relative,) I too would have thought that although the seas around these islands are marginally warmer as our remaining nuclear reactors are all coastal there would not be a serious problem for the foreseable future.

[Rheghead]

A few points:

1. The original article is about inland power stations which are cooled by water from rivers. There is no mention of power stations cooled by lakes, or of coastal stations. None of those studies are of power stations in Britain.
2. In my experience (and opinion), Phys.org isn't a very reliable source of scientific news or opinion. The author of the linked article has extrapolated the results of the paper beyond what was studied. The Phys.org article talks about power stations cooled by water from lakes, the original article is restricted to rivers only. It's also a little sensational.
3. The OP takes things way too far beyond the Phys.org article. It's pretty poor by your standards Rheghead.
4. As far as I know, all of the UK's nuclear stations are coastal, so the study doesn't apply to any of them. This is true of nuclear stations in many (perhaps even most?) other countries.
5. The study does apply to many of Britain's inland coal-fired stations (although Britain is predicted (by some) to get wetter as global warming hits).

I didn't mention that it was an immediate problem for the UK's nuclear fleet or that it had repercussions for the next generation of nuclear power stations. Everybody who contributed to this thread immediately thought I was having a pop at their beloved nuclear power and they rushed to reach why the article doesn't affect the UK.

I'm simply bringing to people's notice that nuclear power is vulnerable to climate change as are other thermal plants which you rightfully say. The fact that thermal plants whether fossil fuelled or nuclear powered are affected by climate change seems to put more importance on renewables as a means of solving the energy crisis and Global Warming.

To take a different angle on things, as you rightfully say, this refers to inland river cooled reactors. I seem to recollect (I'm not googling it for accuracy) that 75% of established reactor sites ARE cooled by water in a closed condenser circuit with the hot water then going to a cooling tower (in other words cooled by ambient temperatures that increase with climate change) or cooled from rivers and lakes. And this is where the future business of nuclear is going to be focused. But there is a knock-on effect for us in the UK. If due to climate change suitable sites are being rejected on account of pure water quality then power companies will have less confidence in the nuclear energy market. They will be foreign companies and it is obvious sadly that we need foreign cooperation to build our plants. As recently history has shown, if our nuclear partners are reducing their interest in nuclear at home then they are less likely to invest here which leaves us with an uncertain nuclear option whether we like it or not.

Also I don't think the article is sensationalising or scaremongering for anyone who actually reads it. In fact I think the following statement seems quite conservative in its prediction...

The authors predict that thermoelectric power generating capacity from 2031 to 2060 will decrease by between 4 and 16 percent in the U.S. and 6 to 19 percent in Europe due to lack of cooling water.

[secrets in symmetry]

Have you read the paper in Nature Climate Change?

I thought the results on French power stations were interesting.

[Rheghead]

No I haven't but I think Hollande has a come to power with the aim of phasing out France's dependency on nuclear power. I do not know the reason's for this but it might have something to do with a lack of sustainability rather than for environmental/safety concerns.

[secrets in symmetry]

I don't know why Hollande said he would phase out France's nuclear power either. Was it just to get votes or does he have some definite plan for new power sources?

According to the paper reported on in the article you linked to, most French power stations will barely be affected by warming of river water, but one or two will be affected in a major way. IIRC there will be significantly more problems in Eastern Europe.

[oldmarine]

No I haven't but I think Hollande has a come to power with the aim of phasing out France's dependency on nuclear power. I do not know the reason's for this but it might have something to do with a lack of sustainability rather than for environmental/safety concerns.

I read that Japan is considering phasing out dependency on nuclear power, but obviously for different reasons than France. Japan has suffered more from nuclear problems than any other nation on earth.

[Rheghead]

I read that Japan is considering phasing out dependency on nuclear power, but obviously for different reasons than France. Japan has suffered more from nuclear problems than any other nation on earth.

Well unknown to many but France has had at least 2 partial core meltdowns and/or serious incident that we know about. These weren't down to any catastrophic natural disaster which I appreciate we can't largely account for, these were down to operator error.