River water temperature "crisis"

Browns Ferry power plant
Browns Ferry power plant (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
davidgmills
June 4, 2012 8:24 pm

Gail Combs.
Thanks. I am not “collecting” thorium videos but I have watched every one I have been able to find.

My2Cents
June 4, 2012 8:34 pm

davidgmills: Re: turbines are about 50% efficient at best. What are you implying here? That the other 50% is waste heat that needs to be cooled? Advanced Brayton gas turbines have intercoolers, reheaters and regenerators to recycle waste heat. Are you saying that even after using them there is still going to be excess heat that you would need to cool with a water cooling system?
Re: Steam turbines use the Carnot Cycle in a closed loop (the steam flow is condensed and sent back to the boiler, and the remaining heat is in the cooling water). Straight gas turbines are Rankine cycle in an open loop (heat exhausted to atmosphere, not to water). Add any heat recovery for power generation and you will need a water cooling system.
But the big difference is the efficiency is the temperature at the turbine inlet which is less than 1100F / 600C for a steam plant and usually more than 1650F / 900C for a gas turbine which boosts the efficiency.
p.s. If you want real efficiency, try a double reheat gas turbine operating in a Cheng cycle.

anengineer
June 4, 2012 8:40 pm

A couple degrees increase in the cold water inlet temperature of a condensor won’t even reduce output by 1%. Either I am missing something, or the author is an idiot.

June 5, 2012 8:03 am

@anengineer
A couple degrees increase in the cold water inlet temperature of a condensor won’t even reduce output by 1%. Either I am missing something, or the author is an idiot.
EPA regulates the temperature of the water in the river. If inlet water temperature is 90F and maximum discharge water temperature regulated by EPA is 90F then you don’t have a heatsink anymore.

James Bull
June 5, 2012 2:03 pm

The water abstracted from the river into reservoirs then to treatment at the works where I work has gone from about 6C a few months back to 17C today (and has been 22C last year) they are worrying about a change of 0.8C.

June 5, 2012 9:48 pm

harrywr2 says:

EPA regulates the temperature of the water in the river. If inlet water temperature is 90F and maximum discharge water temperature regulated by EPA is 90F then you don’t have a heatsink anymore.

Cooling tower, Harry. Cooling tower.
Most power stations, even those on major bodies of water, have them. You can cool rivers with power stations.
It’s possible to build “dry” thermal power stations but it’s much cheaper and practical to use water where it’s available.

Paul Felix Schott
June 6, 2012 3:33 pm

The sounds and rumbling of Volcanoes Around Earth are Waking Up at a Alarming Rate.
Read well and study on your own after you have read this.
This is not a game or joke our Sun gives off a Solar Wind all day year round if you live in the State of Alaska you see it in the sky above what a sight it is going through our Earth’s Magnet Polls of the North and the South, North Poll. Its Called the Northern Lights or the Aurora Borealis.
The day will come when you will be able to see it all over Earth as in the year 1859 Solar Flare, It was the largest in 500 years. Two Astronomer’s Hodgson and Carrington told the World that the Solar Flare made a Geomagnetic Storm reach Earth in hours not days. Back then it gave new meaning to Reach For The Skies from Telegraph Operators. For hours sparks flew from the key board. Even after the Batteries were disconnected. Nov 3 and 4, 2003 had a X40+ Class Solar Flare.
Our Sun’s UV Rays will get stronger as each passing day go’s by, read and i will tell you why.
The Great big forest have be striped from most of the Earth for Greed of Money by the Wicked. The trees our are Main Source of Oxygen on this Plant.
The Forest Trees scrubs the Pollution out of the air and makes Oxygen from the rain and dirt that it grows in.
The Forest Trees do more then just make Oxygen they stop Soil Erosion, just Look at the 1930 Dust Bowl. Greed by our Government taxes led farmers to clear cut all their Forest and farm all the land they were being Tax on. They had to farm it to pay for the Taxes. Why leave the Trees when food crop makes Money. This Did not Help the Depression that effected most all Worldwide. This year 2012 more then 100 million will suffer from Malnutrition lack of food and Dehydration lack of water. Many will not make it and die!
Soon many will run out of Safe Drinking Water from pollution going into the worlds water supply.
In the United States of America alone more than 45 Million Americans Received Food Stamps and that number is going up every day every year for more then 3 years in a row now.
The Pollution and CO2 Carbon Dioxide go into the Tree Bark as a shield from most bugs so they do not eat the tree.
Less Forest less Oxygen this is why the moon. That has no Oxygen is very cold on the side with out Sun Light, And hot as ever on the side with Sun Light. Way too cold and too hot to live there. You would need at least 10 times the Energy we use on Earth to even live there and life on the Moon would be very short.
With no blank of Oxygen to lessen or reduce the Sun’s UV Rays and Solar Wind they are deadly there on our Moon. Every Mt. Climber and Aircraft Pilot knows the higher you go the thinner the Oxygen and colder it gets.
Just spend a night on a Mt. top above 13,000 feet with no Sun Light and you will see or should i say feel the cold stinging any of your exposed skin. If you are new to Mt. Climbing stay below 10,000Ft. The Astronauts and the Cosmonauts and Fighter Pilots that i have been with for years know this very well, and the Radiation Hazards to humans at High Altitudes.
Soon the Sun’s Solar Wind and UV rays will be way to strong for most to go out in the Sun Light for even a short time. The Geomagnetic Storm to come and the Bad Weather Storms well you have not seen nothing yet and the Sea Level is Rising the Oceans. Many Millions have been affected by Floods in China and Pakistan just last year. In 2005 Over a Thousand dead in New Orleans flood, and the list going on. The sounds and rumbling of Volcanoes Around Earth are Waking Up at a Alarming rate.
And there shall be famines, and pestilences, and Earthquakes, in divers places such as was not from the beginning of the Creation.
The last 30 years On Earth we have broke all High Temp Records and the temp it is still going up. All the Worlds Ice Glacier are melting at an Accelerating Rate. The Glaciers and Polar Ice Caps store more water than all the Fresh Water Lakes on Earth. Many of them are drying up or water levels are going down past the lowest point every recorded.
The Bad Weather Storms now are Babies compared to what is to come.
They will get even bigger and worse less Oxygen the more UV Rays to the Earth and more Water molecules will evaporate and go up into the Earth’s Atmosphere. Less Oxygen the colder with out sun light and hotter with it.
The Sky full of more water vapor molecules, more snow in the winter and more Flash Floods in the Summer. All earth will see way more fires and the Deserts are growing larger.
If every living person on Earth were to Plant A Tree Today we might have a chance.
The Earth’s Atmosphere Blanket surrounding it protects life on Earth as Our Lord and GOD will all that seek Him.
Then it is written when the tree is full it is harvest time. All the Earth will someday burn away.
This is all Foretold in the Bible Read it
and may our Lord Bless all that do so.
The Lord’s Little Helper
Paul Felix Schott
solardowork@yahoo.com
KI4-AEX
P.S.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the Earth and its works will be burned up.
GOD Bless You and Your Love ones
Give thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ every day.

Kforestcat
June 8, 2012 6:59 am

This is one of those situations where I wish I had more free time to address the “wisdom” of using climate models to influence policy as opposed to the use of historical data weather and water flow data.
Particularly troublesome is this new reports claim that water discharge levels will drop 25-50% in the central part of the south-eastern United States in the 2040s and by over 50% in the 2080’s.
Fortunately, in this case, the Science & Public Policy Institute did a fairly good job of showing that there are no trends in the historical record that would suggest this studies outcomes are likely to occur. The “bulls-eye” area where the claimed cooling water shortage should occur is the State of Tennessee. An examination of the State of Tennessee’s 1895-2011 weather data, shows the “hot water” trends claimed in Figure 1 of this report are not simply not creditable.
Specifically Science & Public Policy Institute showed Tennessee’s:
– Ambient air temperatures have not varied significantly in the 1895-2007 time-frame. Either annually or seasonally.
– There is no trend suggesting a decrease in annual precipitation in the 1895-2007 timeframe.
– There is no trend suggesting a increase in drought severity in the 1895-2007 timeframe.
See the report entitled “Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effects of Greenhouse-gas Emissions Limits in the State of Tennessee” here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/tennessee_climate_change.html
To double check this data, I update the data in the Science & Public Policy graphs using information from NOAA found here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series
From this data I noted as follows:
– Tennessee’s average annual air temperatures have DECREASED at a rate of 0.3 Deg F/Century. And the June-Aug annual air temperatures also show a trend of decreasing temperature (but not to the same extent). So a claim of more demand for air conditioning and warmer water temperatures is hard to swallow.
– Both the Annual and June-Aug palmer drought severity indexes show slightly under +1; indicating at trend to less severe droughts. So, seasonal water shortages look unlikely.
– Tennessee’s annual precipitation has been trending UPWARDS by about 3.23 inches per century (by linear trend). So it difficult to accept a claim of reduced stream flow required by the new papers predictions.
– The State’s June-August precipitation has remained essentially flat since 1895. So, again, it’s difficult to accept a claim of summer water shortages during the summer peak demand.
– The precipitation in October has actually in increased at a rate of about 1 inch per century since 1895. This contradicts the papers data that show 20-30% decreased in water discharge in October (see Figure 1 of new paper).
As a side observation, I noticed that the period of greatest low water discharge in the new report occurs in October. This is cool period where demand for electricity is very low; hence, it is a period when the “impact” on a generation system would minimal . Also, with regards to the Browns Ferry plant, the water intakes at that plant are located at a point in the Tennessee river where the river is shallow and broad. Hence, the plant intakes water that is warmer than is typical for chemical and electrical generating plants on the Tennessee river.
As I stated earlier, I wish I have more time to address the flaws in this report. Sadly I have more pressing demands.
Regards,
Kforestcat