backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 144 comment(s) - last by MadMaster.. on Jan 29 at 12:40 PM


Duke Energy Corp.'s McGuire reactor, located in north carolina, gets its water from Lake Norman. The lake is only a foot above the shutdown level, and has already dropped 4.5 feet in the last year.  (Source: AP Photos)

The TVA run Brown's Ferry reactor in Alabama was already shutdown once last year. Currently air temperatures are 30 deg. F, while water temperatures are around 70 deg. F, so more shutdowns are expected during the warm summer months.  (Source: kerrn-cbr.blogspot.com)
Drought may shut down plants, lead to much higher energy bills in the Southeast

Whether climate change is a good or bad thing is open to debate, but change indeed appears to be happening in the Southeast U.S., which is being hit with record droughts.  These droughts turned neighbors Florida and Georgia against each other in Federal courts over water rights for the water flowing into the Everglades.  It also is having some startling consequences on one major U.S. alternative energy source.

Nuclear power is only recently gaining newfound respect in the U.S. and abroad, with the first application for a new nuclear plant in 30 years filed late last year and Canada pushing ahead to restart one of its major research reactors after criticism on government inactivity.  Despite these modest gains nuclear remains much maligned among the U.S. public and still has yet to win broad support.  Residents in the Southeast may soon be learning, though, that they didn't know what they had till it was gone, as the drought threatens to cripple the southeast nuclear industry and send energy costs in some areas skyrocketing.

Water is a key part of the process of generating nuclear energy.  It is used to cool the reactor core and to create the steam which is used to drive turbines to convert the heat energy from the reactions into mechanical and finally electrical power.

Plants tend to fall into two categories.  The first have tall cooling towers that discharge most of the water as steam, which is lost into the atmosphere.  Others lack the tall cooling towers and exhaust hot water into reservoirs; however they are limited by environmental regulations as to how much hot water they can purge.  These restrictions are due to the fact that the water is so hot it can easily kill fish and local plants.  Exhausting heated water does recycle a small portion of the used water back into reservoirs, but much of the water still evaporates as it exits steaming hot.

Spokeswoman Julie Hahn for Progress Energy Inc., which operates four reactors in the drought zone, explains the massive water needs of the energy producing giants.  She says one Progress reactor, the Harris reactor, intakes 33 million gallons a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation within its megatonic cooling towers.  Duke Energy Corp.'s McGuire nuclear plant consumes more than 1 billion gallons a day, though a lesser percentage is lost to evaporation than with the Harris reactor.

The situation has gotten extreme, and numerous plants have been shut down, are preparing to temporarily shut down, or are throttling back production.   Nearly a fourth of the nuclear reactors in the U.S., 24 out of 104, are in drought afflicted regions.  Nearly all, 22 of these 24, rely on lakes and rivers for their water needs.   The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. government body which regulates the nuclear power industry, has set minimum allowable water levels for these water sources.  Most of the water sources are approaching these minimum levels.  Falling below means a government mandated plant closure.

Even if the government relaxes its restrictions, the water levels are forecasted to drop below the level of the intake pipes for many of these plants.  At other plants, the water is becoming too hot under the sun and from stored up heat to be used for cooling purposes.

Robert Yanity, a spokesman for South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. states grimly, "If water levels get to a certain point, we'll have to power it down or go off line."

There is no easy answer.  The intake pipes are large and often up to a mile long and concrete and extending them would require months of effort and an overhaul of the plants pumping systems and an unpleasant price tag of millions of dollars.  And the pipes could only dip so deep before they started sucking up sediment and organic materials, leading to blockages.

The shortage affects about 3 million customers in parts of the Southeast who get their power solely from nuclear energy.  Even more people will likely be affected as the quasi-governmental Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) relies on 30 percent nuclear power to fuel the energy needs of its 8.7 million customers.

The plants need over a foot in rainfall over the next month to stay in business, but there is no relief forecasted in site.  Donna Lisenby, executive director of the Catawba Riverkeeper environmental group that tracks conditions Lake Norman and other lakes along the 225-mile Catawba River system, bemoans, "If we don't get at least 10 to 15 inches of rainfall in January, February and March, lake levels could be lower in the fall of 2008 than they were in 2007 -- and that could be a disaster."

The Progress Energy Harris plant is currently at 218.5 feet, 3.5 feet above the legal limit.  Progress officials say if the water dips below the limit, they will be forced to close and buy power from other sources.  Duke's McGuire nuclear plant's lake dropped 4.5 feet since last year and only needs to drop one more foot to be below the legal limit, mandating closure. 

The TVA reactor at Browns Ferry in Alabama already shut down once in August 16, 2007 due to the discharged coolant being too hot.  As reservoir temperatures rise, this is expected to become a much more regular occurrence.

An additional call for concern was raised by David Lochbaum, nuclear project safety director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, who argues that most of the plants can't take the wear and tear of repeated shut-downs and start-ups.

So aside from forcing many Americans to adopt less clean source of energy, what exactly will these possible shutdown potentially cost them?  Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co states, "Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour.  It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power -- especially during the summer."

Nuclear power, while unappreciated, provides cheap alternative energy power.  With climate change threatening to shut down many of the reactors in the Southeast, many people may start to realize how great nuclear power really was when faced with the harsh reality of when it’s gone.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

political
By Screwballl on 1/25/2008 12:17:33 PM , Rating: 5
I understand the need for safety concerns but I wonder how much of this is politically motivated and induced by the greenies?
As a resident of the southeast, why not build a few plants along the gulf coast or atlantic coast and use some desalinized water for the same purpose? The ocean likely won't be dropping if all these ice caps are melting according to Gore and Company...




RE: political
By ebakke on 1/25/2008 12:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
My immediate thought was hurricanes. Though, being from the Midwest, I don't know much about the likelihood or validity of my concern.


RE: political
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2008 12:41:13 PM , Rating: 5
The containment dome on a nuclear plant is several feet of solid concrete. Tests have been done showing them withstanding the impact of a fully loaded jet at 500 mph. A hurricane isn't a concern at all.


RE: political
By retrospooty on 1/25/2008 12:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yup... Its easy to come up with a solution online via web post... In reality the devil is in the details. Things are never easy.

At this point we all need to concentrate on conservation, while govt and industry need to do more R&D. And lets no-one panic. Its not needed, nor helpful. The world as we know it wont end. Just breath and keep breathing. =)


RE: political
By Sahrin on 1/25/2008 1:07:56 PM , Rating: 5
...I don't remember who said it, but someone online wrote "you cannot conserve your way to a better energy future." Contrary to popular belief, the US is not even in the top 7 for Per Capita electric consumption - the nations that top the list contain names like "Sweden, Canda and Luxembourg" - countries which are widely hailed for their attentiveness to environmental issues. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

Conservation is great, and very important, I agree. However, the biggest issues, as you point out - have to do with technological inefficiency, not waste. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USEnFlow02-quad...

The key is to secure and develop new technologies to increase the effectiveness of the network. Your solution is akin to, in the internet world, "turn off pictures" to increase bandwidth. It does nothing to increase bandwidth.

Conservation perpetuates today's problems (if we reduce consumtpion, we are much less likely to improve technologically). Upward pressure will drive the entire society to improve - downward pressure causes it to regress.


RE: political
By omnicronx on 1/25/2008 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the nations that top the list contain names like "Sweden, Canda and Luxembourg" - countries which are widely hailed for their attentiveness to environmental issues.
All of which have ample amounts of fresh water and resources. You can't put 200 hamburgers in front of a fat kid and expect him not to eat it if nobody tells him not too. I think conservation is huge, especially in countries like Canada that have the highest water consumption per capita in the world. If we are not taught at a young age that energy/resource conservation is very important, we will continue to waste our natural resources at ever increasing levels.


RE: political
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2008 1:56:55 PM , Rating: 4
> "we will continue to waste our natural resources at ever increasing levels. "

You don't consume water. Whether you drink it, wash with it, or evaporate it in a cooling tower, it still exists. No matter how much we use or conserve, the earth will still have an identical amount of water in a thousand years as it does now. The same is true for steel, aluminum, and most other elements we mine.

As for energy ocnservation, humans use less than 0.001% of the energy the sun beams to the earth each day...and that doesn't include the vast sources of nuclear and geothermal power, both of which are essentially unlimited as far as human civilization goes.

Conservation of consumables lke fossil fuels are one thing. But conservation in general isn't the ultimatum some people seem to believe it is.


RE: political
By Homerboy on 1/25/2008 4:09:03 PM , Rating: 3
You're taking the "matter can not be destroyed nor created" argument? It can be altered though can it not? Steel is not an element. We create it.

The elements we DO mine are mine-able because they are centrally located in a single location in mass quantities. If just toss aluminum cans and such into or trash with everything else, now that aluminum can is 1 part in a billion tons of soil versus easily extractable (and in a cost effective manner mind you) from a large repository.

Of course we only harness a portion of the suns energy on earth but how do you propose we collect more? Cover the US in solar panels?

You're speaking in idealist terms when we have to live in a reality.


RE: political
By rcc on 1/25/2008 4:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
I believe his point was that it really doesn't matter if Canada (for instance) is the highest per capita water user on the planet. They aren't destroying it. As long as they don't polute it past a certain point it is still functions as part of the ecosystem.


RE: political
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2008 5:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "Steel is not an element. We create it."

We create it by mixing a little carbon into iron. There's uncounted trillions of times as much iron as we could ever possibly use on the earth....and that doesn't count the even larger quantities we can get from mining asteroids.

> "The elements we DO mine are mine-able because they are centrally located..."

Nearly every mine operating today is extracting ore that, 200 years ago, would have been much too low in concentration to commercially extract. Technology improves, and so does our ability to exploit resources. In 100 years, we might be able to extract elements cheaply from seawater, without even needing to mine.

> "Of course we only harness a portion of the suns energy on earth but how do you propose we collect more? "

There are dozens of potential methods, including space-based collectors which wouldn't require massive arrays here on earth.

And, of course, nuclear power alone can easily power our needs for thousands of years, even should demand increase tenfold.


RE: political
By slunkius on 1/28/2008 2:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And, of course, nuclear power alone can easily power our needs for thousands of years, even should demand increase tenfold.


It would be very interesting if you could provide a source for this claim, because from what i have read, reserves of nuclear fuel are worth some ~50 years, and that is based on current level of demand


RE: political
By masher2 (blog) on 1/28/2008 11:12:45 AM , Rating: 2
> "because from what i have read, reserves of nuclear fuel are worth some ~50 years"

In 1965, we had approximate 50 years of uranium reserves. Today, over 40 years later, we don't have 10 years left-- we have 50. Why? Because no one explores for uranium when you've got half a century's worth of it already found. The truth of the matter is uranium prospecting has barely begun, with most of the earth's surface not surveyed for uranium, and many low-yield mines shut down due to the 1980s plummet in uranium prices.

The true amount of reserves we have are at least 15X higher. But for purposes of this calculation, lets just assume they're only 5X higher. That gives us 250 years. So where's the rest come from?

Right now we burn uranium fuel once, then throw it away. In the 1970s we used to reprocess that fuel. Burned in a breeder reactor, it actually makes more fuel...a process that can be repeated up to 20 times. President Carter banned fuel reprocessing for proliferation concerns, and the industry has never recovered. But restarting that "closed fuel cycle" process gets us to 5000 years.

But that's just uranium. Thorium is some 3X as abundant...and new reactor designs can use thorium just as easily as they can uranium. That brings us to 15,000 years of fuel reserves.

Given that man's recorded history is only about 5,000 years long, a 15,000 reserve is essentially infinite, as far as we're concerned.


RE: political
By DKWinsor on 1/25/2008 7:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The elements we DO mine are mine-able because they are centrally located in a single location in mass quantities. If just toss aluminum cans and such into or trash with everything else, now that aluminum can is 1 part in a billion tons of soil versus easily extractable (and in a cost effective manner mind you) from a large repository.


There's twice as much aluminum in the crust as there is calcium, 4 times as much as potasium, sodium, and magnesium, all things our body needs and gets plenty of. There's 400 times as much aluminum as there is carbon. And about 1000 as much aluminum as copper, nickel, and zinc. But the clencher is that there's 1.5 times as much aluminum as iron.

Al2O3 makes up 15.9% of the earth's crust.

So, thanks for proving these quotes, especially the whole post by Sahrin which I won't quote obviously.
quote:
[Conservation] is akin to, in the internet world, "turn off pictures" to increase bandwidth. It does nothing to increase bandwidth.
quote:
Conservation is great, and very important, I agree. However, the biggest issues, as you point out - have to do with technological inefficiency, not waste
quote:
You don't consume water. Whether you drink it, wash with it, or evaporate it in a cooling tower, it still exists. No matter how much we use or conserve, the earth will still have an identical amount of water in a thousand years as it does now. The same is true for steel, aluminum, and most other elements we mine


And before you go thinking I'm a tree-hugger-hater, I try to recycle *everything* right down to the last sheet of paper and quite often they reject what I put in the recycle bin so I have to put it in the trash.


RE: political
By DKWinsor on 1/25/2008 7:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
And before anyone quotes metal prices, the point was to show that blind conservationism by itself is not the best solution.

Yes, I know that aluminum is expensive not because it is rare like the other metals I listed but because it requires a lot of energy to extract. When you recycle aluminum you aren't recycling the element so much as you are recycling energy.

So if there's thousands of times more energy to use, I intend to use it, and don't tell me not to for the sake of conservation.


RE: political
By wordsworm on 1/26/2008 5:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
Steel is not an element anymore than water. Steel is a composite of elements. Iron is an element. If you want to learn what elements there are, simply look at the periodic table.

Water itself can be destroyed. Just separate the oxygen from the hydrogen, and it's destroyed.Conversely, you can make water. Just combine 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom and you've got water. None of this is complicated stuff. It's elementary chemistry that I picked up from grade 8 science.

As far as water being consumed: indeed we are close to a crisis. Most of Canada's fresh water is very close to a crisis situation, despite it being lauded as the bastion of fresh water. This is because a great portion of that fres