Reader comments
Readers' forum: Too hot for nuke power
36 comments | Read story
Dave | 8:30 a.m. July 16, 2009
And it is just impossible to cool water.
Anonymous | 8:53 a.m. July 16, 2009
Nuclear power is going to be a very necessary part of our overall strategy to
move to renewable sources. It is not the boogie man. I would like to see solar
on every rooftop and a nuclear base load.
I am a liberal and I am for nuclear power (and I can even pronounce nuclear).
I am a liberal and I am for nuclear power (and I can even pronounce nuclear).
Comments continue below
...and I'm TreeHugger. | 8:53 a.m. July 16, 2009
France is 80% dependent on power from 58 nuclear power plants.
In 2003 there was a spike in temp that caused some plants to idle operation. 75F max going in,77F max going out — a 2 degrees difference.
The assumption by the Letter writer says that Utah’s Green River power project would provide 100% of our power needs. It is baseless and is typical “all or nothing thinking”.
In the late 1970s, Flaming Gorge and Lake Powell added water towers to draw warmer water from the surface down to the outlets because the water temperatures in the rivers below the dams was too LOW, harming the environment.
The summer is peak season for WindPower and SolarPower is 50+% more effective from the longer daylight hours. Besides, lakes providing Hydro are also just reaching full capacity.
The letter writer forgets the other 315 days or 86% of the year when Utah is not scorching hot.
I agree, the letter writer has hidden agenda.
In 2003 there was a spike in temp that caused some plants to idle operation. 75F max going in,77F max going out — a 2 degrees difference.
The assumption by the Letter writer says that Utah’s Green River power project would provide 100% of our power needs. It is baseless and is typical “all or nothing thinking”.
In the late 1970s, Flaming Gorge and Lake Powell added water towers to draw warmer water from the surface down to the outlets because the water temperatures in the rivers below the dams was too LOW, harming the environment.
The summer is peak season for WindPower and SolarPower is 50+% more effective from the longer daylight hours. Besides, lakes providing Hydro are also just reaching full capacity.
The letter writer forgets the other 315 days or 86% of the year when Utah is not scorching hot.
I agree, the letter writer has hidden agenda.
Anonymous | 9:11 a.m. July 16, 2009
The letter is a little confusing. At first it sounds like you can't use
water in the plant if it is above a certain temperature, which sounded
ridiculous. Then it stated that you can't return the water to the river.
That has an easy solution. Hold on to the water until it cools down, or
possibly even mix it with the water coming if it's near enough. That water
probably 33 degrees fahrenheit, or just water the desert.
Nuclear Power in Phoenix | 9:25 a.m. July 16, 2009
One Question - If it is to hot in Frane to have nuclear power plants, how come
we can have one in the west Phoenix valley that works just fine?? I have never
been to France but I know for a fact that is is a heck of alot hot here in the
Phoenix valley then it is in France.
Seems like a bunch of enviromentalist hot air to me.
Seems like a bunch of enviromentalist hot air to me.
Blaine | 9:37 a.m. July 16, 2009
We could build coal fired power plants since they
do not require cooling water.
do not require cooling water.
Try thinking outside the box | 10:07 a.m. July 16, 2009
Ed, Try thinking outside your pre-conceived box.
River water isn't the only cooling option available. You can use cooling towers that don't raise the temperature of the water source the water was taken from.
Another option... The water comming out of today's dams (Glenn Canyon, Flaming Gorge, etc) comes from the bottom of the reservoir, so it is WAY COLDER than the natural flow would be and that COLD water is changing the ecology downstream from the dams. We could harvest energy twice at these sites. Once using gravity to turn the turbines, then again by using the same water to cool a nearby N-Power plant and then returning the water to the river closer to the natural tempurature it would have been without the Dam being there.
Just something to think about.
Everything isn't an insurmountable problem (unless of course you just want it to be).
River water isn't the only cooling option available. You can use cooling towers that don't raise the temperature of the water source the water was taken from.
Another option... The water comming out of today's dams (Glenn Canyon, Flaming Gorge, etc) comes from the bottom of the reservoir, so it is WAY COLDER than the natural flow would be and that COLD water is changing the ecology downstream from the dams. We could harvest energy twice at these sites. Once using gravity to turn the turbines, then again by using the same water to cool a nearby N-Power plant and then returning the water to the river closer to the natural tempurature it would have been without the Dam being there.
Just something to think about.
Everything isn't an insurmountable problem (unless of course you just want it to be).
@ "Blaine | 9:37 a.m." | 10:11 a.m. July 16, 2009
Blaine | 9:37 a.m.
Coal/Natural Gas powered power plants don't require cooling water? What do you think they do with all that water they used to make the steam?
I hope you were just being sarcastic.
Coal/Natural Gas powered power plants don't require cooling water? What do you think they do with all that water they used to make the steam?
I hope you were just being sarcastic.
just drill for cold water! | 10:16 a.m. July 16, 2009
they could use water that is in the deep underground lake thats spans most of
the west, up to canada, the gov knows about because they run into the water
every time they drill for oil, it would be enough water for all the west there
is no water shortage! they already piped hill air force base into it. but it a
control issue they want to tell us don't water your lawn take short showers
etc! plus they wanted to build the central utah water project instead with dams,
when it would have been cheaper by far just to drill for water. but anyway i
suspect water deep in the ground would be plenty coool for nuclear plants.
AAS | 10:33 a.m. July 16, 2009
This article is probably about some environmental regulation in France that the
water from the nuclear plant has to be below a certain temperature or it
can't be dumped back into the river and nothing to do with plant
operation.
If this is the case, dozens of people died in the heat that year but it's OK because the fish had to be comfortable.
If this is the case, dozens of people died in the heat that year but it's OK because the fish had to be comfortable.
CaptHowdy | 11:08 a.m. July 16, 2009
AAS,
That's exactly what it is.
That's exactly what it is.
nukie | 11:42 a.m. July 16, 2009
Why bother with stone age reactor technology anyhow?
Go for High-Temperature Gas-cooled reactors. Keep 'em
small, modular, efficient, foolproof,,, and easily
de-comissioned when the time comes.
Go for High-Temperature Gas-cooled reactors. Keep 'em
small, modular, efficient, foolproof,,, and easily
de-comissioned when the time comes.
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 12:09 p.m. July 16, 2009
A couple of quick responses to the feedback.
As to the idea of pre-cooling water, I suggest the extra water required (assuming conventional cooling towers are used) would prohibitive. As it stands, depending on the number of reactors ultimately installed and the type of cooling system, the Green River plant will PERMANENTLY remove from 28,492 to 105,202 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River system every year. By comparison, the slightly larger Palo Verde facility uses about 77,000 acre fee/year. Substantially increasing the plant's projected water needs by pre-cooling the water, on a desert river that's already oversubscribed, looks to me like a no-go from the start.
There's a reason only ONE reactor in the U.S. isn't located on a major river (and the Green is not a major river in this case) or near the ocean: water. Take a look at the map on the NRC's web site to see just how empty the West is of nuclear. The one exception, pointed out by a reader, is Palo Verde, which, significantly, is cooled by recycled waste water from Phoenix, NOT river water.
As to the idea of pre-cooling water, I suggest the extra water required (assuming conventional cooling towers are used) would prohibitive. As it stands, depending on the number of reactors ultimately installed and the type of cooling system, the Green River plant will PERMANENTLY remove from 28,492 to 105,202 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River system every year. By comparison, the slightly larger Palo Verde facility uses about 77,000 acre fee/year. Substantially increasing the plant's projected water needs by pre-cooling the water, on a desert river that's already oversubscribed, looks to me like a no-go from the start.
There's a reason only ONE reactor in the U.S. isn't located on a major river (and the Green is not a major river in this case) or near the ocean: water. Take a look at the map on the NRC's web site to see just how empty the West is of nuclear. The one exception, pointed out by a reader, is Palo Verde, which, significantly, is cooled by recycled waste water from Phoenix, NOT river water.
real issue | 12:19 p.m. July 16, 2009
when there is an idiot on the corner shouting his/her message if you go to argue
with the idiot after a while others will have a hard time distinguishing who the
idiot is...
Engineer | 1:00 p.m. July 16, 2009
Natural draft, not "conventional" cooling towers would be used in any
nuclear plant built in the dry West. They use no pumps and are much more
efficient than in Europe where the humidity of the air is so much higher than in
Utah.
CaptHowdy | 1:10 p.m. July 16, 2009
Ed,
One misleading spin that the anti-nukes consistantly make is citing past practices and designs to make their point to argue against future endeavors. Like when they say that since the Savannah River waste site has contaminated the environment, that any other site built will do the same thing. What they fail to admit is that that site was constructed many decades ago and the technology has since improved.
Don't base water consumption usage of power plants by those that are now in use. No new plants have been built in this country since 1979. Newer designs are many times more efficient.
It's like saying that you shouldn't buy a car today based on the fact that the 1967 Chevy was an unsafe car without airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, etc.
One misleading spin that the anti-nukes consistantly make is citing past practices and designs to make their point to argue against future endeavors. Like when they say that since the Savannah River waste site has contaminated the environment, that any other site built will do the same thing. What they fail to admit is that that site was constructed many decades ago and the technology has since improved.
Don't base water consumption usage of power plants by those that are now in use. No new plants have been built in this country since 1979. Newer designs are many times more efficient.
It's like saying that you shouldn't buy a car today based on the fact that the 1967 Chevy was an unsafe car without airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, etc.
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 1:15 p.m. July 16, 2009
I'd like to add one additional response to CaptHowdy, who observes that
there are nuclear plants in the U.S. that operate where temperatures are hot.
Yes, and No. When temperatures get really warm, as they regularly do in
Utah's desert, many American nuclear plants have to either reduce
generation or shut down altogether, just as in Europe. We are not somehow
magically immune to the effect of high water temperatures. In 2006, for example,
significant reductions or shut downs were initiated at the TVA's
Brown's Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3, at the Cook reactor in Michigan, at the
Quad Cities reactors 1 and 2 in Illinois, to name a few of the affected sites.
And we must keep in mind that this kind of problem will only worsen as global
warming continues.
My point was not that Utah would necessarily be dangerously dependent on the Green River plant but that given CERTAIN increases in water temperature and likely decreases in water availability due to global warming and drought, a reactor in the Utah desert is prima facie a bad investment, even if we have other sources of power to draw on.
My point was not that Utah would necessarily be dangerously dependent on the Green River plant but that given CERTAIN increases in water temperature and likely decreases in water availability due to global warming and drought, a reactor in the Utah desert is prima facie a bad investment, even if we have other sources of power to draw on.
AAS | 1:16 p.m. July 16, 2009
Ed,
Nuclear plants are also located on public and privately held ponds and reservoirs. There is substantial recycling particularly in the lake reactors, so your water usage amounts are suspect. Also, as Phoenix has shown, it's possible to use the local wastewater.
If the Green River is not big enough, the mighty Wolf Creek and overwhelming Neosho River in Kansas must be amazing torrents. FYI. They are a relative trickle.
Nuclear plants are also located on public and privately held ponds and reservoirs. There is substantial recycling particularly in the lake reactors, so your water usage amounts are suspect. Also, as Phoenix has shown, it's possible to use the local wastewater.
If the Green River is not big enough, the mighty Wolf Creek and overwhelming Neosho River in Kansas must be amazing torrents. FYI. They are a relative trickle.
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 1:24 p.m. July 16, 2009
To Engineer
We don't know at this point what type of cooling is planned for the Green River facility. But regardless, if the cooling involves water it will a) be subject to the effects of high river water temperatures, and b) be a huge drain on an already strained resource.
I draw everyone's attention to this salient fact: Utah is at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to rights in Green/Colorado river water. So, if we come, as I believe we will sooner than almost anyone would believe possible, to a point like that experienced during the 1999-2005 drought when the river flow is dramatically lower than normal for an extended period of time, the downstream states will exercise their preemptive rights, leaving Utah and its Green/Colorado river water users high and dry. In my view, this means that we will have a gigantic, radioactive white elephant in the middle of our state, a monument to colossal short-sightedness.
We don't know at this point what type of cooling is planned for the Green River facility. But regardless, if the cooling involves water it will a) be subject to the effects of high river water temperatures, and b) be a huge drain on an already strained resource.
I draw everyone's attention to this salient fact: Utah is at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to rights in Green/Colorado river water. So, if we come, as I believe we will sooner than almost anyone would believe possible, to a point like that experienced during the 1999-2005 drought when the river flow is dramatically lower than normal for an extended period of time, the downstream states will exercise their preemptive rights, leaving Utah and its Green/Colorado river water users high and dry. In my view, this means that we will have a gigantic, radioactive white elephant in the middle of our state, a monument to colossal short-sightedness.
CaptHowdy | 2:32 p.m. July 16, 2009
Ed, baby,
You mention Browns Ferry, Quad Cities and Cook. Although I never made it to the Cook site, I've worked at both Quad Cities and Browns Ferry as well as 24 other nuclear power stations from 1979 to 1990. The D.C. Cook plant is a sister plant, identical in design to the Meguire Plant in North Carolina and the Catawba Plant in South Carolina where the summer temperatures are much hotter than in Michigan. I've never known any of them to shut down or require significant reductions in operation due to hot temperatures outside. The summer months are peak operating times for nuclear plants which is why outages (shutdowns) for refueling and maintenance are usually scheduled in the winter months.
I don't know where you're getting this information from, but it is simply untrue.
How long have you been in the nuclear industry?
You mention Browns Ferry, Quad Cities and Cook. Although I never made it to the Cook site, I've worked at both Quad Cities and Browns Ferry as well as 24 other nuclear power stations from 1979 to 1990. The D.C. Cook plant is a sister plant, identical in design to the Meguire Plant in North Carolina and the Catawba Plant in South Carolina where the summer temperatures are much hotter than in Michigan. I've never known any of them to shut down or require significant reductions in operation due to hot temperatures outside. The summer months are peak operating times for nuclear plants which is why outages (shutdowns) for refueling and maintenance are usually scheduled in the winter months.
I don't know where you're getting this information from, but it is simply untrue.
How long have you been in the nuclear industry?
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 2:34 p.m. July 16, 2009
CaptHowdy,
Granted that designs have improved, the fact remains that reactors consume VAST amounts of water. The figures I quoted earlier have a low-end estimate for the Green River plant of around 30,000 acre feet. That's 15 times the water consumed by Moab, including agriculture. At present, air-cooled options exist only in theory, and are NOT contemplated in any event for Green River. Transition Power, if memory serves, has recently applied for its first batch of Green River water to the tune of about 29,000 acre feet/year, consistent with the estimates. And more claims are on the way.
AAS
Kansas's Wolf Creek 1200 MW plant is a much smaller reactor than the proposed twin 1500 MW Green River facility, and therefore has much lower water requirements. And, it is fed by a dedicated reservoir. Not that that makes much of a difference in the long term, especially under global warming. The fact that Kansas was stupid enough to put a nuclear plant on a smallish river (its flow isn't unlike that of the Green when it's not full of spring runoff) doesn't mean Utah should follow suit.
Granted that designs have improved, the fact remains that reactors consume VAST amounts of water. The figures I quoted earlier have a low-end estimate for the Green River plant of around 30,000 acre feet. That's 15 times the water consumed by Moab, including agriculture. At present, air-cooled options exist only in theory, and are NOT contemplated in any event for Green River. Transition Power, if memory serves, has recently applied for its first batch of Green River water to the tune of about 29,000 acre feet/year, consistent with the estimates. And more claims are on the way.
AAS
Kansas's Wolf Creek 1200 MW plant is a much smaller reactor than the proposed twin 1500 MW Green River facility, and therefore has much lower water requirements. And, it is fed by a dedicated reservoir. Not that that makes much of a difference in the long term, especially under global warming. The fact that Kansas was stupid enough to put a nuclear plant on a smallish river (its flow isn't unlike that of the Green when it's not full of spring runoff) doesn't mean Utah should follow suit.
CaptHowdy | 2:47 p.m. July 16, 2009
Ed said:
"...when the river flow is dramatically lower than normal for an extended period of time, the downstream states will exercise their preemptive rights, leaving Utah and its Green/Colorado river water users high and dry.In my view, this means that we will have a gigantic, radioactive white elephant in the middle of our state, a monument to colossal short-sightedness."
Do you really believe - if this were a viable scenario - that the investors and the utility would not have accounted for this? Do you think they would have invested a billion dollars on a chance like that? Believe me, people who invest huge amounts of money like that are not that shortsighted.
"...when the river flow is dramatically lower than normal for an extended period of time, the downstream states will exercise their preemptive rights, leaving Utah and its Green/Colorado river water users high and dry.In my view, this means that we will have a gigantic, radioactive white elephant in the middle of our state, a monument to colossal short-sightedness."
Do you really believe - if this were a viable scenario - that the investors and the utility would not have accounted for this? Do you think they would have invested a billion dollars on a chance like that? Believe me, people who invest huge amounts of money like that are not that shortsighted.
@ "Ed Firmage, Jr. | 12:09 p.m" | 2:52 p.m. July 16, 2009
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 12:09 p.m
I haven't looked at the webiste you referenced but the West isn't void of Nuclear Power Plants. Palo Verde isn't the only Nuclear Power Plant in the West as you stated. I am aware of at least one in Oregon (I used to pass it every day on the way to work). Last I checked Oregon was in the West.
I know of at least one in Carlsbad California. I assume there are more in California (the West).
I've heard of one in Idaho.
There's a nuclear reactor at the University of Utah (not on a river).
The scare tactics only work if the story is believable.
I haven't looked at the webiste you referenced but the West isn't void of Nuclear Power Plants. Palo Verde isn't the only Nuclear Power Plant in the West as you stated. I am aware of at least one in Oregon (I used to pass it every day on the way to work). Last I checked Oregon was in the West.
I know of at least one in Carlsbad California. I assume there are more in California (the West).
I've heard of one in Idaho.
There's a nuclear reactor at the University of Utah (not on a river).
The scare tactics only work if the story is believable.
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 4:52 p.m. July 16, 2009
CaptHowdy
Investors don't make stupid decisions, even to the tune of billions? Ever heard of Bernie Madoff? No doubt all of his investors did their homework as thoroughly as Aaron Tilton's have done theirs. No doubt the latter have thoroughly studied the Law of the River and climate change, etc., etc.
NOT! No more than folks down in St. George have done theirs as they talk about staking the future of St. George on the Lake Powell Pipeline, which, if it is ever built, will probably never actually deliver water. Another billion-dollar boondoggle.
People who really DO their homework on climate change look at the Colorado River Compact and the modern Southwest and see disaster in the making. I suggest you read James Powell's Dead Pool, where you'll find, among many other interesting things, a very reasonable model according to which Lake Powell could reach dead pool, the point where no water can leave the dam, by 2022. Long before that time, the Law of the River will be tightening the squeeze on Utah. Anyone here depending on the Colorado is in for a world of hurt.
Investors don't make stupid decisions, even to the tune of billions? Ever heard of Bernie Madoff? No doubt all of his investors did their homework as thoroughly as Aaron Tilton's have done theirs. No doubt the latter have thoroughly studied the Law of the River and climate change, etc., etc.
NOT! No more than folks down in St. George have done theirs as they talk about staking the future of St. George on the Lake Powell Pipeline, which, if it is ever built, will probably never actually deliver water. Another billion-dollar boondoggle.
People who really DO their homework on climate change look at the Colorado River Compact and the modern Southwest and see disaster in the making. I suggest you read James Powell's Dead Pool, where you'll find, among many other interesting things, a very reasonable model according to which Lake Powell could reach dead pool, the point where no water can leave the dam, by 2022. Long before that time, the Law of the River will be tightening the squeeze on Utah. Anyone here depending on the Colorado is in for a world of hurt.
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 5:19 p.m. July 16, 2009
To @ Ed Firmage, Jr.
I didn't intend to represent that Palo Verde was the only reactor of any kind in the West. It is, however, the only power plant in the West (CO to CA, WA to AZ) that isn't on a major river or the ocean. It is nonetheless true that there are very few power reactors in the West, and that with two exceptions all of these are located on the ocean. One exception is Palo Verde, which uses recycled waste. The other exception is the Columbia Generating Station on the Columbia, one of America's largest rivers.
These are not scare tactics but facts. You can check them out on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website (Google "location of nuclear power plants"). You'll see a great big empty space between Kansas and California. It's empty for a reason, and it should stay empty.
For your information, the U.'s tiny research reactor generates 100 kW. That's 1/15,000 of what is being proposed for just one of the two Green River reactors. As you can see, we're talking about orders of magnitude difference in potential impact and vulnerability.
I didn't intend to represent that Palo Verde was the only reactor of any kind in the West. It is, however, the only power plant in the West (CO to CA, WA to AZ) that isn't on a major river or the ocean. It is nonetheless true that there are very few power reactors in the West, and that with two exceptions all of these are located on the ocean. One exception is Palo Verde, which uses recycled waste. The other exception is the Columbia Generating Station on the Columbia, one of America's largest rivers.
These are not scare tactics but facts. You can check them out on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website (Google "location of nuclear power plants"). You'll see a great big empty space between Kansas and California. It's empty for a reason, and it should stay empty.
For your information, the U.'s tiny research reactor generates 100 kW. That's 1/15,000 of what is being proposed for just one of the two Green River reactors. As you can see, we're talking about orders of magnitude difference in potential impact and vulnerability.
skeptic | 6:17 p.m. July 16, 2009
I'm not anti nuke, but I don't think Mike Noel with his open disdain
for federal regulation of any type and online Viagra salesman Aaron Tilton have
any business building, owning or operating a nuclear reactor.
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 8:18 p.m. July 16, 2009
CaptHowdy,
You asked for my sources on the problems caused by the 2006 heatwave. I've seen these mentioned in several online documents, but one convenient collection is a paper entitled "Nuclear Power Can't Stand the Heat" put out by Public Citizen (I'd give you the URL but the Deseret News won't let me). This document is accompanied by a piece entitled "References for Nuclear Power Can’t Stand the Heat."
You asked for my sources on the problems caused by the 2006 heatwave. I've seen these mentioned in several online documents, but one convenient collection is a paper entitled "Nuclear Power Can't Stand the Heat" put out by Public Citizen (I'd give you the URL but the Deseret News won't let me). This document is accompanied by a piece entitled "References for Nuclear Power Can’t Stand the Heat."
Ernest T. Bass | 9:09 p.m. July 16, 2009
Ed knows what he's talking about.
As opposed to the typical republican talking head who never actually does any objective research.
As opposed to the typical republican talking head who never actually does any objective research.
CaptHowdy | 9:31 p.m. July 16, 2009
Yeah, that's right, Ernest T. He knows what he's talking about because
he picks his talking points from liberal anti-nuke web sites.
I, on the other hand, am just a "typical republican talking head who never actually does any objective research" except that I've dedicated my life to working in the nuclear industry.
And by the way, that was very insightful of you to nail which political party I belong to. Dead wrong, but nontheless insightful.
I, on the other hand, am just a "typical republican talking head who never actually does any objective research" except that I've dedicated my life to working in the nuclear industry.
And by the way, that was very insightful of you to nail which political party I belong to. Dead wrong, but nontheless insightful.
Hon. E. Bee | 7:14 a.m. July 17, 2009
The reason there aren't many nuclear power plants between kansas and
Califonia isn't because a lack of water - Its because of a lack of people!
CNC | 7:39 a.m. July 17, 2009
The reason the French had to reduce the power output of their plants was because
they have very strict regulations to the output temperature of the cooling water
from the plants. If they were allowed to discharge at higher temperature, only a
few degrees more, they would not have needed to have reduced the power output.
New plant designs being built in France takes this into consideration. Nuclear
plants can be designed to run safely in the hottest places on earth if we wanted
to. Your augments if you do not mind the pun do not hold water.
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 8:44 a.m. July 17, 2009
To CNC
Output temperature is a factor. But if you read the reports you'll see that input water temperature is even more important. In emergencies, France has allowed slightly higher output temps.
Output temperature is actually a vital issue. The idea that we should not allow the nuclear industry to destroy our rivers seems worth defending, or don't you think that living rivers are important to our survival? But I haven't raised the issue of output water temperature at Green River because I'm told that Aaron Tilton claims that his plant won't release cooling water back into the river. For the time being, I'll take him at his word, but that only makes the issue of water consumption more critical.
To Hon. E. Bee
Oh, I don't know about that. Utah has about the same population as Kansas. Colorado has substantially more. Somehow we find reason to build coal-fired plants here, and Aaron Tilton thinks he has a business case for a nuke on the Green River. I think you'd have to conclude that the builders of nuclear plants didn't find the western environment congenial. Thank God.
Output temperature is a factor. But if you read the reports you'll see that input water temperature is even more important. In emergencies, France has allowed slightly higher output temps.
Output temperature is actually a vital issue. The idea that we should not allow the nuclear industry to destroy our rivers seems worth defending, or don't you think that living rivers are important to our survival? But I haven't raised the issue of output water temperature at Green River because I'm told that Aaron Tilton claims that his plant won't release cooling water back into the river. For the time being, I'll take him at his word, but that only makes the issue of water consumption more critical.
To Hon. E. Bee
Oh, I don't know about that. Utah has about the same population as Kansas. Colorado has substantially more. Somehow we find reason to build coal-fired plants here, and Aaron Tilton thinks he has a business case for a nuke on the Green River. I think you'd have to conclude that the builders of nuclear plants didn't find the western environment congenial. Thank God.
Pro Nuke | 1:43 p.m. July 17, 2009
The temperature of the cooling water would be the same no matter what fired the
plant; coal, natural gas, oil, or a steam driven solar plant. The temperature is
not as much of an issue as volume and restrictions on water temperature leaving
the plant.
I would guess that the problem is volume, which would not have been the case if they had been using seawater. France has plenty of coastline if they wanted to use seawater for cooling.
This writer's argument against nuclear power is bogus! The United States has plenty of coastline and rivers where nuclear plants could operate, without a cooling problem.
I would guess that the problem is volume, which would not have been the case if they had been using seawater. France has plenty of coastline if they wanted to use seawater for cooling.
This writer's argument against nuclear power is bogus! The United States has plenty of coastline and rivers where nuclear plants could operate, without a cooling problem.
Ed Firmage, Jr. | 3:35 p.m. July 17, 2009
To Pro Nuke
In this letter and my subsequent comments, I was NOT arguing against nuclear power in general, and if you had bothered to read any of the foregoing with care you would have seen that one of my points is precisely that the place to locate a nuclear plant is where you have abundant, cool water, as on a coastline. Where you don't have abundant, cool water, as in the American desert, you're a fool to build a reactor. When you can count on temperatures increasing and drought conditions prevailing, as in the Southwest, and you build a nuclear reactor, you're twice a fool.
As for the inbound water temperature not being an issue, you're just plain wrong, as you would also discover if you read the news reports about what's going on in France or what has happened here in the U.S. when water temps rise. You may be Pro but you're not well-informed, which I think is not untypical of a lot of Pro folk.
All of this said, I will offer the opinion that nuclear anywhere is a bad idea.
In this letter and my subsequent comments, I was NOT arguing against nuclear power in general, and if you had bothered to read any of the foregoing with care you would have seen that one of my points is precisely that the place to locate a nuclear plant is where you have abundant, cool water, as on a coastline. Where you don't have abundant, cool water, as in the American desert, you're a fool to build a reactor. When you can count on temperatures increasing and drought conditions prevailing, as in the Southwest, and you build a nuclear reactor, you're twice a fool.
As for the inbound water temperature not being an issue, you're just plain wrong, as you would also discover if you read the news reports about what's going on in France or what has happened here in the U.S. when water temps rise. You may be Pro but you're not well-informed, which I think is not untypical of a lot of Pro folk.
All of this said, I will offer the opinion that nuclear anywhere is a bad idea.
davelv | 5:03 p.m. July 17, 2009
Very good set of comments with lots of informed posters. Amazing!
Colorado used to have Ft. St. Vrain, but it was an experimental design that had teething problems and was dismantled.
But what was done in the past has no bearing on future needs. Cheap coal was avaiable in the west outside of California and thus it was used. Coal will not be allowed in the future. So what power do you want when it is -20 outside? Something reliable I presume, and solar/wind are not, particularly in Utah where it can be snowy and cloudy for days on end in the winter.
Nuclear would seem to be the only choice. Dry air cooling is possible (look it up on the internet), but it does increase the cost a bit. However with minimal water usage, a nuclear power plant or two would result in 20 cent /kwhr power for the first 10 years, and about 5 cents forever after.
Remember, existing power plants were built 30+ years ago when the dollar was worth more. Any new plant will cost 3 to 4 x more.
Colorado used to have Ft. St. Vrain, but it was an experimental design that had teething problems and was dismantled.
But what was done in the past has no bearing on future needs. Cheap coal was avaiable in the west outside of California and thus it was used. Coal will not be allowed in the future. So what power do you want when it is -20 outside? Something reliable I presume, and solar/wind are not, particularly in Utah where it can be snowy and cloudy for days on end in the winter.
Nuclear would seem to be the only choice. Dry air cooling is possible (look it up on the internet), but it does increase the cost a bit. However with minimal water usage, a nuclear power plant or two would result in 20 cent /kwhr power for the first 10 years, and about 5 cents forever after.
Remember, existing power plants were built 30+ years ago when the dollar was worth more. Any new plant will cost 3 to 4 x more.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Discovery has come a long way, baby 5:11 p.m.
- Dining out: Scaddy's 5:11 p.m.
- Boyfriend needs to pull own weight 5:11 p.m.
- On the screen 5:11 p.m.
- Weekend entertainment calendar 5:11 p.m.
- 'Boondock Saints' sequel distasteful 5:11 p.m.
- 'Museum' among new DVD releases 5:11 p.m.
- 'Sweet as Candy' honors mother 5:11 p.m.
- Song evokes sweet-dream memories 5:11 p.m.
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies 4:37 p.m.
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Rivalry has had some 'turkeys'
- Cave rescuers committed to free man
- Holiday television program listings
- Highland players make special friend
- Temple Square to use LEDs
- Missions teach players perseverance
- Matt Reynolds vs. Koa Misi
- Provo star leads Bulldogs to win
- Jazz part of new holiday tradition?
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
261 - Glenn Beck to enter politics?228
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple210
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- BYU records with win133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin131
- Thunder rolls by Jazz129
- Boys basketball rankings116
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
Latest comments
BYU is afraid to play in front of the media public every year and that is why...
Will one, just one of you AGW believers prove that the earth is warming!...
Wondered what 1 would do if given and oppurtunity to play a professional...
Like most people I am progressively sicker with the way congresses are...
I have explored Nutty Putty before as well as other caves around the State....
Ywa Zionz has it share of deaths but the difference is that Zions National...
Actually a lot of conservatives did NOT want this war and still don't....
All these Ute fans are setting themselves up to be humiliated. Oh, and by...
this is a senseless death that didn't have to happen. my heart goes out to...
The band was awesome!! Thank you, Caleb, for allowing a member of the Little...
Advertisements
There are plenty of nuclear power plants in the U.S. that run when temperatures are hot. There are 7 units in South Carolina, 4 in Georgia, 2 in Louisiana, 3 in Alabama, 2 in Texas and the Palo Verde plant in Phoenix where temperatures routinely reach into the 110s and beyond.
Why don't you just write an honest letter that simply states that you are against nuclear power instead of trying to twist facts to promote your agenda.