From the University of Washington press office, another modeled scenario suggesting that small 0.8C climate change signal will find its way into the rivers, overheat the water, and thus overheat the power plants, causing shutdown, darkness, and rioting in the streets. Well, maybe not that last part, but you get the idea. Part of the shutdown issue at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant was due to the severe weather in Alabama and heavy spring rains (part of the La Nina pattern) delaying construction of a needed cooling tower. And the shutdown problem isn’t new. For example in cooler Canada in 2007:
An unexpected build up of algae on a lake-water intake system used for cooling has forced Ontario Power Generation to temporarily shut down one of its Pickering nuclear reactors until the fast-growing green muck is cleaned up.
Experts say bad-smelling blooms of Cladophora algae are linked to warmer water temperatures and are likely to get worse as a result of global warming and high phosphorous levels caused by lawn fertilizers, agricultural runoff and detergents entering the lake.
So I wonder, in the case of the Tennessee River, just how much of the problem is silt/fertilizers and algal blooms etc. Clear water doesn’t absorb nearly as much sunlight as turbid water, and from the photo above, the water looks turbid.
Nuclear and coal-fired electrical plants vulnerable to climate change
Warmer water and reduced river flows in the United States and Europe in recent years have led to reduced production, or temporary shutdown, of several thermoelectric power plants. For instance, the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama had to shut down more than once last summer because the Tennessee River’s water was too warm to use it for cooling.
A study by European and University of Washington scientists published today in Nature Climate Change projects that in the next 50 years warmer water and lower flows will lead to more such power disruptions. 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. The likelihood of extreme drops in power generation—complete or almost-total shutdowns—is projected to almost triple.
“This study suggests that our reliance on thermal cooling is something that we’re going to have to revisit,” said co-author Dennis Lettenmaier, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering.
Thermoelectric plants, which use nuclear or fossil fuels to heat water into steam that turns a turbine, supply more than 90 percent of U.S. electricity and account for 40 percent of the nation’s freshwater usage. In Europe, these plants supply three-quarters of the electricity and account for about half of the freshwater use.
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.
Reduced water availability and warmer water, caused by increasing air temperatures associated with climate change, mean higher electricity costs and less reliability.
While plants with cooling towers will be affected, results show older plants that rely on “once-through cooling” are the most vulnerable. These plants pump water directly from rivers or lakes to cool the turbines before returning the water to its source, and require high flow volumes.
The study projects the most significant U.S. effects at power plants situated inland on major rivers in the Southeast that use once-through cooling, such as the Browns Ferry plant in Alabama and the New Madrid coal-fired plant in southeastern Missouri.
“The worst-case scenarios in the Southeast come from heat waves where you need the power for air conditioning,” Lettenmaier said. “If you have really high power demand and the river temperature’s too high so you need to shut your power plant down, you have a problem.”
The study used hydrological and water temperature models developed by Lettenmaier and co-author John Yearsley, a UW affiliate professor of civil and environmental engineering. The European authors combined these with an electricity production model and considered two climate-change scenarios: one with modest technological change and one that assumed a rapid transition to renewable energy. The range of projected impacts to power systems covers both scenarios.
The U.S. and Europe both have strict environmental standards for the volume of water withdrawn by plants and the temperature of the water discharged. Warm periods coupled with low river flows could thus lead to more conflicts between environmental objectives and energy production.
Discharging water at elevated temperatures causes yet another problem: downstream thermal pollution.
“Higher electricity prices and disruption to supply are significant concerns for the energy sector and consumers, but another growing concern is the environmental impact of increasing water temperatures on river ecosystems, affecting, for example, life cycles of aquatic organisms,” said first author Michelle van Vliet, a doctoral student at the Wageningen University and Research Centre in the Netherlands.
Given the high costs and the long lifetime of power plants, the authors say, such long-range projections are important to let the electricity sector adapt to changes in the availability of cooling water and plan infrastructure investments accordingly.
One adaptation strategy would be to reduce reliance on freshwater sources and place the plants near saltwater, according to corresponding author Pavel Kabat, director of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and van Vliet’s doctoral adviser.
“However, given the life expectancy of power plants and the inability to relocate them to an alternative water source, this is not an immediate solution, but should be factored into infrastructure planning,” he said. “Another option is to switch to new gas-fired power plants that are both more efficient than nuclear- or fossil-fuel-power plants and that also use less water.”
The study was supported by the European Commission.
Other co-authors are Fulco Ludwig at Wageningen University and Stefan Vögele at the Institute of Energy and Climate Research in Germany.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (called LFTRs) don’t use water. Time to switch to thorium, the nuclear fuel that was abandoned because it was too hard to make nuclear bombs out of it. A LFTR was tested at Oak Ridge in the sixties and proven to work. LFTRs use no water, work at atmospheric pressure, produce only 1% of the nuclear waste of light water uranium reactors (and much of that waste can be used for medicine and space exploration) and can’t be easily used as a nuclear fuel for weapons. Watch the best video on it. It will make you angry that we chose not to develop it.
This situation is difficult to understand. Most good engineers design plants with 20 percent over capacity. As well, if the water is too warm, then put on a larger pump, or add a chiller unit to the water.
“…another modeled scenario suggesting that small 0.8C climate change signal will find its way into the rivers, overheat the water, and thus overheat the power plants,…”
Oh dear oh dear! The mind boggles with the claims these modellers make.
the water that used in the cooling towers does not cool the turbines…it is used to condense the spent steam that has already gone through the turbines
Pollution. The fact is farm and industry run off should not be reintroduce unless treated to at least the tertiary level, and after lagooning.
This article has BS written all over it. I wonder if they are trying to make a case for higher electricity prices to fund/promote the so-called green technologies.
Yeah…. cuz windmills and solar and biofuels are SO insensitive to climate change… or seasonal change…. or daily change….let’s not talk about that….
Ian Bryce;
or add a chiller unit to the water.>>>>
The additional load on the power station to run the chiller would negate the effect of the chiller and then some.
Odd is it not that hydro dams have been built in places like Churchill that can operate down to -50C and in the tropics that can operate at +50C, but a temp change of 1 degree will shut them down? Oh, i see from the article that itz not the temperature change per se, itz the ever so slight increase in temps will cause algae blooms….which oddly are dependant primarily on nutrient availability not temperature. Then there is the reduced water flow from reduced rainfall despite CAGW theory relying on increased water vapour and increased variability which logically must result in increased rainfall not decreased.
I used to mock papers like this with sarcastic humour. Now I just read them in disbelief that the authors had the guts to put something so completely full of holes into print, and then further disbelief as the MSM and govt agencies don’t even bother to question it. The sky is falling and they want to rush off and tell the king.
The article appears to me to be a plug for natural gas. Nat king coal, nat nuclear.
So a wise thing to do is prepare a shopping list of nat gas stocks to pick up on the cheap, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel plays pull the football away from Charlie Brown all summer. Again, like she did last year.
One problem I have with this study is that I recently read about a study that showed that the streams have not been getting warmer despite of global warming.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Study_finds_stream_temperatures_dont_parallel_warming_climate_trend_999.html
Notice how the temperature rise is modelled not from real data. Power plants typically a 10-20C change in cooling water temperature winter to summer yet we are lead to believe they can’t cope with a less than degree change. It looks like another fact free paper by someone looking for a grant.
Algal growth, rather like tree rings, are poor proxy temperature indicators. Algal growth increases with more nutrient and light, for increased photosynthesis, regardless of temperature. They should look upstream for farm fertilizer runoff. But the extra spring and summer light will drive the growth which makes algae a non problem in the winter.
Some ordinary water-cooled reactors are built on small creeks, which have less thermal inertia than major rivers. Presumably a creek moves with local air temperature more than a big river. These reactors don’t seem to have problems with outages, because they use a system of ponds to keep both inlet and outlet water under controlled conditions.
In other words, competent engineering.
For example, Wolf Creek in Kansas:
http://www.wcnoc.com/aboutwolfcreek.htm
“Experts say bad-smelling blooms of Cladophora algae are linked to warmer water temperatures and are likely to get worse as a result of global warming and high phosphorous levels caused by lawn fertilizers, agricultural runoff and detergents entering the lake.”
CAGW appears to be a parasitic phenomena. It also has the magic properties of somehow hiding important influences that are in plain sight.
What a colossal load of crap! In the last twenty years the net change in earth’s net temperature is less than 0.1 degrees C but showed a natural variability over that period approaching 1.0C The range of expected water temperature that the plants were designed to operate within has to be in excess of 15 (?) degrees given that they have to operate in the summer time as well as in the winter plus summer is the time of highest demand in the warmer regions. Nuke engineers are going to pad the numbers to be on the safe side in addition to standard safety factors so the actual design range is likely even much greater. (Nuke and other steam power engineers – please chime in…)
It just seems absolutely moronic to suggest that a change of 1 degree, (let alone 0.1), has any measurable and un-correctable impact at all on efficiency thus serving to illustrate that ‘these people’ are getting mighty desperate indeed, (or smoking too much pot).
davidgmills— seen the video which is very good and I am now a thorium convert, though i do know about its roll in the crust with the radioactive isotope of Potassium which is more plentiful but not as useful.
Sometimes nuclear plants technical specifications require shutdown for nuclear safety reasons not turbine performance reasons. Say for example their nuclear accident analysis use river water and assume 95F water so some limit isn’t exceeded during an accident, and 99F might cause that limit to be exceeded. So they shut down for nuclear safety reasons, they have no choice. Then they fix the problem. Yeah the “limit” is exceeded by only a few degrees but the NRC does not allow such latitude and they do not like such problems to linger. I don’t know the situation or technical specificals at these plants but the slow degradation of nuclear safety systems over time (pipe plugging, tube fouling etc) might require periodic adjustment of the technical specification water temperature downward.
“Another option is to switch to new gas-fired power plants that are both more efficient than nuclear- or fossil-fuel-power plants and that also use less water.”
—————————
wtf
Won’t affect the UK; all reactors use sea water for cooling. Maybe we’ll see a paper about the forthcoming jellyfish crisis soon? /sarc
While it is true that LFTRs don’t use water to directly cool the reactor, the heat is transferred to a boiler/water/steam cycle for power production. It is the steam cycle to the turbines which actually cool the reactor, and this cycle is identical to all other “conventional” steam cycle where energy is rejected ultimately at the condensers. All power stations rely on water, for heat rejection, to a cooling tower, river, lake etc.
I am all for development of thorium, but there is no reason to make claims, that are silly. Water/steam is still the heat transport medium utilized by the secondary circuits. GK
pat says:
June 3, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Pollution. The fact is farm and industry run off should not be reintroduce unless treated to at least the tertiary level, and after lagooning.
_________________________________________
And who the HECK do you think is going to PAY for THAT!
Most farmers according to the last USDA survey I looked at are already LOSING an average of $15,000/year putting food in your mouth. Farmers can not raise their prices because there is ONE buyer (or cartel) who sets the price not the seller (Monospony) Graph of Corporate Concentration in Agriculture
Also See: Consolidation in Food and Agriculture: Implications for Farmers & Consumers
That was a decade ago and matters have only gotten worse.
http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/sep/7/if_you_eat_you_better_get_gipsa/
This article is such rubbish it’s hard to know where to start. Increasing water temperature does not cause loss of heat sink; it causes reduced turbine thermal efficiency. Thermal plants are forced to shut down because of regulations controlling water temperature discharge limits. As others have noted, none of this is about “cooling the turbine”. It’s about steam condensation. Warmer condensation means simply reduced turbine efficiency. It seems evident that the authors of this drivel know nothing about the Rankine steam cycle.
These discharge limits have been greatly tightened over the past 30 years. In Ontario, for example, the thermal discharge limit was to raise the water temperature no more than a certain degree at a certain distance from the outlet. For Pickering entering service in the early 1970s, the discharge limit was two or three degrees C. By the time Darlington entered service in the early 1990s, it was no more than about 0.5 degrees C.
And there’s never been any real evidence that any of these changes had the slightest negative effect on fish populations. To the contrary, the warm Pickering discharges are a favourite site for fishing during the winter.
So, the easiest measure is raise the discharge limits during times of high water temperature. The second longer term measure is diffuse the water discharge over a larger area. What do these moronic authors think a cooling tower is? But none of this is considered by the paper’s authors. All they are interested in doing is writing a antinuclear propaganda piece to support a German panicked nuclear shutdown in 2011.
On a hot summer day incoming cooling water increases with temperature. If the plant is at 100% full power, the MW(e) output will slowly decrease as incoming temperatures increase. This is because the temperatures at the condenser increases. This causes condenser vapor back pressure to increase and therefore more work is expended pushing the steam through the turbine instead of producing MW(e). Typically up to 10% of output can be lost.
Accident analysis of power plants has to make certain assumptions, in order to construct a model for accident analysis. One important assumption is the temperature of incoming cooling water. If conditions arise such that incoming cooling water is above that which is assumed, then the accident analysis is no longer valid. Reactors are required, by law, to operate within the accident analysis model at all times. This is the operating envelope, and all plants operate within these parameters or must decrease output until they are.
There is one final restriction which is directly due to environmental concerns regarding thermal pollution. Power stations are allowed to reject heat to the lake/river/reservoir within certain hard limits. Obviously, unlimited heat rejection to a lake will cause temperature increases to that lake or river, locally and in general. Therefore limits on delta T are imposed on any discharge as well as the absolute discharge temperature.
None of the above is new and power stations are dealing with this every summer… global warming or not. GK
A report on TVA’s nuclear program from today’s news:
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/jun/04/delays-mire-nuclear-plant-construction/
Their new reactor under construction is 1.5 to 2 billion dollars over budget.