Nuclear Power outed in Ontario, for speeding-up Global Warming, and Great Lakes water depletion

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/21/02482.html

Nuclear Power outed in Ontario, for speeding-up Global Warming, and Great Lakes water depletion

by Ziggy Kleinau

Much has been made of the power contained in a single uranium fuel bundle used in Ontario's CanDU reactors to produce electricity. It is supposed to be able to generate as much electricity as 380 tonnes of coal or 1,800 barrels of oil (Canadian Nuclear Association website: Nuclear Facts). Compared to the burning of fossil fuels to produce the steam to generate electric power the fuel bundle undergoes a fission process, splitting the uranium atoms to produce heat to fabricate the steam to drive turbines connected to the generators in a complicated process of electricity generation.

As a matter-of-fact, so much heat is produced by the fission-activated neutrons that to keep the fuel from uncontrolled meltdown, “ there need to be huge amounts of cooling water drawn from Lakes Huron and Ontario.

The 6 operating Bruce Power reactors, by the way, are drawing close to 17 million litres of lake water A MINUTE(!) to keep the process from overheating (Golder Associates Ltd. Consultants). What happens to this cooling water? Most of it is discharged back to the lake, but not in the same condition. It goes back out up to 12 degrees Celsius warmer. This so-called thermal plume has been heating up the Lakes for decades, 24/7, 365 days a year.

Very little ice has been forming on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay over successive, even colder, winters, resulting in lake water evaporation over the full 12 months instead of the normal 8 months of ice-free water. Without ice cover solar irradiation will also have the effect of additional warming of the open waters, while ice cover would have reflected the sun's rays. No wonder lake levels continue to drop, now at record low levels, affecting the economy of shipping companies and marinas, with waters getting warmer, resulting in increased evaporation and cloud forming.

...

[fascisthunter]

1. kick

[izquierdista]

2. Another reason for underground reactors

If the reactor was half a mile underground, the earth itself could be used as a heat reservoir. Excess heat that was not converted into electricity could be exchanged with the walls of the underground vault, which have practically infinite heat capacity.

[NNadir]

3. Outed by whom? A scientist or a dumb fundie reporter who hears what he wants to hear?

Only in fundie land does the second law of thermodynamics apply only to nuclear plants.

In fact there is NOT ONE fundie anti-nuke who gives a rat's ass about the thermodynamics of dangerous coal plants.

Ontario is the only national entity in the world that has attempted to phase out coal.

By contrast, dumb shit fundie inspired movements like the one pushed by the Gazprom executive Gerhard Schroeder have led to more coal, and more instances of the application of the second law of thermodynamics.

[madokie]

4. Good post big guy, I'm sure the OP didn't get the note telling that you don'l like this kind of post

and that it makes you get all besides yourself and in spite of all the constraints you have holding you back, these out burst just comes out, that you can't, no matter how hard you try, control yourself. I'm sure that they will get it this time as you showed them how the cow eats the cabbage, you know, as they say. Huh nnadir.

[HamdenRice]

10. Wow, you're like breaking records

Not one constructive post, ever, out of like 14,000!

[Javaman]

17. good old dependable nnadir. what would a thread on anything nuclear

related be without a crazy old man rant from nnadir?

it would be like spring without the birds...oh wait.

[NickB79]

5. You should check your source. Their homepage is full of alien woo-woo

For example: http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/21/02479.html

"Manipulative Extraterrestrials and Canadian Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine"

or http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02471.html

"Extraterrestrials and the Hollow Earth Theory"

or http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/18/02473.html

"Prophetic Insights: God, Globalization, and Manipulative Extraterrestrials"

[kristopher]

6. I'm not defending the source but

This is their "about us" page:
The Canadian is an editorially independent and not-for-profit national newspaper. It is inspired by Canada's very first newspaper called 'Le Canadien', that was founded in 1806.

We are committed to affirming a sovereign Canada, by defending the national public interest via a critical approach to mass-media coverage. The aspirations for a sovereign Canada had inspired the journalists of 'Le Canadien', as well as Tommy Douglas, former Prime Minister Trudeau, and other Canadians, toward the pursuit of the Canadian Dream. Trudeau had specifically referred this Canadian Dream, as the pursuit of a socially progressive 'Just Society'.

Like any mass media, I'd expect to find a lot of chaff with the wheat.

Now this particular article was written by:
Ziggy Kleinau, Coordinator for non-profit organization Citizens For Renewable Energy (CFRE) has taken part in Environmental Assessment and licensing hearings before the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for over 12 years.

Here is their website. That might be better considered the "source" of the article.
http://www.web.net/~cfre/

Now, I didn't look closely, but I saw no evidence of "alien woo woos" at all.

Now a question. I've always been aware of the damage done by thermal emissions from thermal power plants of all types. Has anyone ever calculated the total excess heat generated by the inefficiencies in some or all the thermal processes we use for power generation and transportation?

I've never seen an analysis, do you know of one?

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Nice juxtaposition:

"God, Globalization, and Manipulative Extraterrestrials" followed by "What can you do 'The Morning After' a threesome to avoid negative feelings."

:yoiks:

[Nihil]

8. Classic!

A little browse of that site and my sadness at the morning's news
drifted away on a wave of hysterical laughter!
:rofl:

[GliderGuider]

9. Do the frackin' math, people

17 million litres of water a minute! 12 degrees Celsius hotter! Those sure are big numbers, right? Lake Huron must be set to boil any minute now, right?

Well, let's crunch the numbers.

17 million litres of water a minute is 9 cubic kilometers per year.
Lake Huron contains 3,450 cubic kilometers of water.
Raising the temperature of 9 cubic kilometers of water by 12 C and mixing it with 3450 cubic kilometers would raise the temperature of the lake by 0.03 degrees Celsius. Three one-hundredths of a degree.

Of course the water goes into the lake in a thermal plume, which means that the adjacent water heats up more and the distant parts of the lake aren't affected. But it also means that the concentrated heat in the plume will dissipate more rapidly due to the effects of increased local evaporation and increased radiative dissipation (that's infrared radiation, just so nobody freaks out about "OMG, more radiation!").

The heat dissipation will cut the total thermal load delivered to the lake by a significant amount. I'm not sure how much, but I'd bet that over a year two thirds of the excess heat will wind up back in the air or in outer space, resulting in a temperature rise on the order of one hundreth of a degree.

Another way to look at it is how many joules are added to the lake compared to that added by sunlight. I used an average insolation value for the latitude of Lake Huron of 150 watts per square meter. According to my calculations, compared to the sun, the Bruce power station adds one ten-thousandth of one percent of the sun's heat to the lake over the course of a year.

So any problems related to heat from the waste water will be confined to the local vicinity of the plume. There is not enough additional heat to affect the overall behaviour of the lake in any measurable way whatsoever.

Let's obsess about real stuff, OK?

[SidDithers]

11. Good post...nt

Sid

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Please consider

Your math may be fine, assuming that the heat is being added evenly to the entire lake. It's not. It's being added in "plumes."

Have you ever seen a frozen pond, with an inlet? (you know, a stream or a spring or something.) The pond doesn't freeze over there, even though the temperature difference may be quite slight (running water is generally above freezing.)

OK, so multiply that effect by something the size of a nuclear plant and (of course) multiply the pond to something the size of one of the great lakes. A region of open water, leading to more regional solar heating...

[madokie]

13. I think the flaw in that math is what you are suggesting

I would think that a lake that size would have on its own a difference somewhat in temperatures from north to south and east to west. but thats just me a thinking

add: running water or water in movement whether by waves or running can and do drop below the freezing temp. I've seen one of our lakes freeze over solid in a matter of minutes after the wind died down and that how ducks and geese can get frozen in solid, trapped if you will, in the ice. I've seen this myself with my own lying eyes too. ;-)

[GliderGuider]

14. Isn't that about what I said?

There may well be localized problems near the plume. However, the tone of the article (emphasized by the quotes in the OP) implied that the cooling water was responsible for lake-wide loss of ice cover and loss of lake water levels. That's scare-mongering, because there just isn't enough added heat energy to cause any lake-wide effects, especially if it's contained in a plume. If the cooling water came from a river I'd be concerned, but we're talking about the fifth largest lake in the world here.

The original article said "This so-called thermal plume has been heating up the Lakes for decades, 24/7, 365 days a year." That's a classic example of framing the argument by ignoring relevant information. Such as issue of scale and any consideration of the concurrent increased heat flux out of the plume (due to its greater temperature differential from the surrounding water) that has also been going on "for decades, 24/7, 365 days a year."

Problems like this flag the original article (to me anyway) as propaganda.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. I believe there's an important difference to consider here

I rather regret posting the original article.

However, let me offer a parallel argument to yours: Coal plants in Ohio may have regional effects, but would not seriously affect the larger ecosystem, and those effects would not be cumulative.

Neglecting the controversies of "Global Warming" for the nonce, when I was a boy, I toured "http://www.nps.gov/shen/">Shenandoah National Park" with my parents. A few years back, I took m'lady through Shenandoah. The views were marvelous, but I learned that such views have become relatively rare (only on a handful of days) thanks to coal plants in Ohio.

Here's the difference between a bad day and a good day at Shenandoah:



One of the things we should be learning from "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" is that seemingly small differences can lead to very large changes in the environment, especially over time. Just as coal burning plants' effects can be seen hundreds of miles away, I suspect that the effects of uranium burning plants can be detected throughout a great lake.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/26/AR2008012601748.html

Great Lakes' Lower Water Levels Propel a Cascade of Hardships

By Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 27, 2008; Page A04

CHICAGO -- A decade ago, Chicago winters meant monumental ice hillocks and caves forming along the lakeshore, skirted by interlocking ice sheets like a giant jigsaw puzzle.

Today, it is rare to see more than a thin frozen shelf or a few small ice floes sloshing in Lake Michigan below the city's skyline.

Decreased ice cover on the Great Lakes, probably caused by increasing air and water temperatures and high winds, is a major culprit in lowering water levels, which have hurt the shipping industry, forced lakeside power plants to extend their cooling pipes, frustrated recreational boaters, dried up wetlands and left coastal landowners with docks extending over yards of unsightly muck.

In September, Lake Superior broke its 81-year-old low-water record by 1.6 inches, and last month it was a foot below its seasonal average. It appeared that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron would log record lows for January until storms helped levels stay above the marks set in the 1960s.

...

[GliderGuider]

18. The heating effects of a nuclear plant on a lake are limited to direct thermal effects

...from the heating of the cooling water.

Any process that puts CO2 into the air has a leverage effect because the trapped energy is coming from insolation, not just the generating process. As the PV supporters remind us, this energy far exceeds anything humanity produces, so trapping just a bit more of it has really major effects. Other air-borne contaminants can also have significant effects, as your photos point out.

The original article is an anti-nuclear piece that tried to slip its agenda in through a side door. Unfortunately it tripped over its own scientific shoelaces doing so, and made enough noise in the process to wake up people like me with spreadsheets.

I have a lot more sympathy for anti-nuclear arguments that are couched in terms of the human and economic costs of waste storage, uranium mining, system complexity, construction capital etc. The waste heat argument might even have merit if river water was used for cooling. This article, however, blew it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. No, they aren't

You're removing ice cover from a portion of the lake. That leads to greater evaporation, and to greater insolation (since open water absorbs more sunlight than ice.)

[GliderGuider]

24. Those are themal effects.

There is some leverage due to albedo changes, but that happens in a small area near the plume, and over less than half the year. Compared to the effects of atmospheric CO2 or smog from a coal power plant, it's insignificant.

You could make the case that human activities are placing a greater thermal load on the earth as a whole, but the biggest impact there is urban heat islands. Compared to that, and especially to the GW effects of CO2 or the health effects of smog, the impact of a thermal plume from any kind of power plant is globally insignificant. Again, there may be significant local problems that should be addressed from this kind of discharge, but not global (or even regional) ones.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. They are not "direct thermal effects"

The direct thermal effect is the warming of the water in the cooling process (and of course the loss of water in the form of steam.)

The effects I mentioned (increased evaporation and insolation) are indirect (resulting from the loss of ice cover.)

[GliderGuider]

28. OK, I agree -- they are secondary effects.

Caused by the direct application heat to the environment. It's still a lower-order threat than CO2 or smog.

[One_Life_To_Give]

16. Difference between Heat of Nuke vs. Fossil?

I am always amused by the complaints about the amount of cooling required to run a Nuke. When an equivalent output Coal, Oil or Gas power station generates just as big a cooling requirement. Requires the same amount of cooling towers, lake or river water feed or some other method of heat rejection to operate.

[GliderGuider]

19. And the more efficient a plant is, the less colling it requires.

Thermal calories are the same no matter how they are generated.

[madokie]

22. I was reading here yesterday that nuclear plants make a lot more heat than they can utilize

so therefore they have to have a much bigger means of removing that excess heat. We can get there, there being energy independent, without increasing our use of nuclear energy and we will. I think or hope you know where I stand on this. Nuclear energy is too dangerous and when something does go wrong it can have devastating consequences.

I don't think it necessary to know all the ins and out about fission to be able to have a well sounded and grounded opinion on this too. if it required that then no one, not even you could be posting about it here on DU, even big guy would not be qualified and according to him he is the tastiest apple on the tree. You like nuclear energy, I don't

one word, waste, is all it took for me years ago and its all it takes for me today to remain where I am. edumacate me about that if you will.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Most power plants generate much more heat than is productively used to generate electricity

Whether it's a coal plant or a nuclear plant, most likely, it generates power by boiling water to run a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine">steam turbine.

[madokie]

25. but not on the level that fission does though

when that heat goes into the atmosphere what does that do then? surely it can't be helping along the warming up of the planet now can it, or, can it?;-) Like my airconditioner is now. I think I'll go check the temperature of the exhaust on that airconditioner to see what it is. if its much higher I'll post it here ok.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. Our heat output isn't as big a problem as our greenhouse gas output

The GHG's trap heat which would normally be "lost" into space.

There's one heck of a lot of energy being received from the Sun at every instant. If that cannot escape, you get Venus.


The inefficiency of a nuclear plant (or of a coal plant) is largely due to the inefficiency of the steam turbine(s) it uses to generate electricity.

[madokie]

30. I think we're maybe talking around each other though somewhat

I'm not trying to be dificult but what I am saying is with nuclear they have to use a lot more heat removing apparatus's, cooling towers in some cases, lakes in others, all of these processes is moving heat to the atmosphere, more so than with coal as with coal you have to burn it to get it hot enough to boil water whereas with nuclear fission you have to remove huge amounts of heat to keep it from overheating. coal you just slow the process of burning down some but with nuclear you do not have that luxury. If the heat isn't removed, way more than is required to boil the water to make the steam you will get a runaway reaction. as I understand it there is no throttling a nuclear reaction, you can only contain it, it either is or isn't with no in between. correct me if I'm wrong though ok. The heat removed in the summer requires a much larger heat exchanger than for the winter so it all has to be sized for the hottest months which coinsides with the heaviest loads too.


I just came in from checking the temp from our airconditioner and it was blowing 160 degree air outside. I have long thought that the heated air from the building in cities helps to raise the temperature there as compared to out here in the country. I know the asphalt and all the building are getting hot too plus moving the heat thats removed from the insides to the outside and every little bit helps in raising the temp.

and yes our heat output is not as big of a problem as with ghg, I know that, :-) but it all works in there.

[GliderGuider]

29. Actually, they're about the same.

From http://mb-soft.com/public2/powerplt.html

Most Electric Power Generating Plants (in the U.S.) are set up to use coal as the fuel for producing steam for the turbines/alternators that produce a constant amount of electricity, along with other alternators that are normally not running.

These other alternators are generally powered by modified airplane jet engines that use natural gas or (refined) petroleum as the fuel source. Those jet-engines/alternators have lower efficiencies, usually in the low 20% range, and so they are usually not relied on as the primary electric power generators. Their advantage is that they can be started and generating electricity within a few minutes of a required power demand surge.

The point here is that each of those technologies have the same large thermal losses as for the nuclear fuels mentioned above. For coal, the overall thermal efficiency is comparable to that calculated above for nuclear, in the lower 30% range, for the exact same reasons, but lower due to several percent of additional losses due to inefficient burning. For jet engine driven alternators, the thermal losses due to heating water to create steam and then discarding that waste heat are avoided, but the jet engine exhaust has enormous amounts of heat in it. A jet engine operating at maximum efficiency is around 32% efficient, with the rest mostly getting wasted as the hot exhaust gases. There are mechanical losses and then electric-magnetic losses in the alternator, which explains the "low 20% range" total thermal efficiency mentioned above.

Similar thermal efficiency means they have similar cooling requirements.

[madokie]

31. I agree with that the plants themselves are on a par with each other

what I'm wanting to know about is the difference in the fact that fission gets so much hotter and therefore takes much larger heatexchanger for that and that alone, before the heat gets to the plant where its actually going to do work. I have a sense you are not getting what I'm asking cause you keep telling me answers to questions I'm not asking. My bad that I can frame it in a way that you can understand what it is I'm saying or more so asking.

At another time I'll try to ask the same things but after I educate myself a little better on how to ask what it is I'm asking. if that makes any sense to you.

Peace

[One_Life_To_Give]

33. Steady State Heat flow is the same

For all intents and purposes the steady state heat flow of a generating plant is the same no matter how it is fueled. I believe the Nuke has a higher thermal mass so there is slightly more waste heat created when the plant is cycled on and off. But typically Nukes don't cycle much and are either hot and running or cold and in maintenance.

[madokie]

35. thanks but thats really not what I was asking

I'm wondering about the heat in the reactor itself, where the fuel rods are and the related hardward in containing that not the plant. I read that the heat inside the reactor is way hotter than that in a burn pot or whatever its called in a coal plant. and its that heat I'm worried about. Maybe I should be asking what the temperature is inside the reactor, do you know that? How is it in comparisons to a coal or gas, for that matter fire, that would help me. I may be making a bunch to do about nothing too ;-) of which I really wasn't wanting to do to begin with.

Like I was saying to GliderGuider, of who I have the utmost respect for btw, I'll have to edumacate myself a little better so as to frame my question in a more understandable way. to me I know what I want to know but for some reason its not being seen by anyone else. Thats my bad not you alls, you all have been great and I appreciate the efforts being made to help me. I'll get back on this after I have a chance to give it some deep thought of which I can't do right now, ok. Thanks though :-)

it very well may be that thermal mass you mentioned but not in the sense of turning it on or off. As I said I'll holler back.

[GliderGuider]

36. You may be confusing temperature with heat

They are different units - temperature is measured in degrees, heat in units like BTUs that are temperature-independent. Higher temperature doesn't mean more heat, if the mass being heated is lower. Think of it as "heat = temperature times mass". A lower mass at a higher temperature can contain the same heat (number of BTUs) as a high mass at a lower temperature. A high-temperature system may need a bit fancier equipment to transfer the waste heat into the lower-temperature, higher-mass heat sink (i.e. the cooling water), but the amount of heat transferred measured in BTUs won't change as the temperature drops.

In electricity, the exact analog is voltage for temperature and kilowatt-hours for BTUs.

[madokie]

37. Very well may be

I understand all that and that really isn't what I was wanting to know. Ok let me ask this, is the heat generated in the reactor only exactly the amount to do the work required or is it greater and if it is how much. I'm asking about inside the reactor, nothing to do with anything else, just inside that reactor, is the heat of fission just enough to do the work asked of it or is more being made with some of it siphoned off through heat exchangers, whatever, and if so how much. Please don't get upset with me, please. we can drop this anytime you want or figure I'm as 'someone lesser' might say to me i'm too stupid to learn.

[One_Life_To_Give]

38. Just enough to do the work

The reactor doesn't generate any more power than is necessary to do the work. Like any other fuel the reaction is "throttled" to generate no more heat than can be used by the generating system. The system of transfering the heat from the reactor to the turbine generator has an extra loop in it to isolate the water in the reactor but it's about the equivalent of moving the turbine in a conventionally fired system a few more meters away. Heats up the building a little more but not much else.

[GliderGuider]

39. Thast's not how I understand it.

If that was true, there would be no need for cooling water. Thermal systems always less than perfectly efficient. That's one of the reasons why battery-powered cars are more energy efficient than internal combustion vehicles.

This is what's measured in "thermal efficiency". A typical reactor or coal plant has a thermal efficiency of 30%, meaning that 30% of the reaction energy is converted to electricity. The other 70% stays as heat, and has to be removed from the system by the cooling water. The initial temperature of a reactor core will be higher than the flame of a coal power plant, but the heat generated will be about the same for the same size plant -- both the amount of heat used for work and the amount dumped as waste.

[madokie]

42. now I get it. whew

thanks to everyone who help me to get that. like I said that pool out back is calling out to me loudly

[One_Life_To_Give]

43. Cooling water is for the process

Of the total heat that enters into the Steam Turbine generating process the Eff% is converted to electricity and 100-Eff% is taken up in the cooling system. The reactor, burner, solar system generates just enough heat to power the generating system.

There is no additional cooling required for the core during normal operation. Heat would only have to be dumped in the event the generator was taken offline. Which is the case of Eff% = 0, when as the reactor cools all of the heat is essentially wasted.

[OKIsItJustMe]

44. Well...

One disadvantage of steam turbine-based generation is that it doesn't tend to get throttled up or down to follow load. Nuclear (especially) is noted for being "base load." Operators of coal and nuclear plants tend to offer discounts at "off-peak" times.

[madokie]

41. Okiedokie, thanks

I'm still thinking that there is maybe a loop that is for keeping the reactor from melting down though. would that be that loop that you mention there. if it is then where would I get the info as to how much it actually is, heat energy, not just in general terms like equivelent to etc. I still want to think we have some heat that has to be removed there that is being missed that a coal or gas plant doesn't have and I believe this may be it. And it maybe is not enough to worry with, its just I have a want for an answer. thanks

I hear a pool calling my name out right now, hey madokie get your dumb ass out here and off that damn computer before it drives you nuts ;-) you crazy bastage you. 'saying that to me'

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Yes, such comparisons are amusing

However, did the article propose using coal plants instead of nuclear plants?

[One_Life_To_Give]

32. Article Implies Nuclear is the reason

The implication of the entire article is that being a Nuke is the reason for the effect. When in truth it's the thermal electric generation that is the reason for heating the water. It could use concentrated solar theermal for power and we would still flow just as much water thru the plant and still increase it 12C etc.

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. I don't think so, at least not quite

I believe the point of the article (although perhaps not well made) is that Nuclear power is not a good solution to "Global Warming."

In the lead paragraph, the author offers a comparison of nuclear to fossil fuels (i.e. both use heat to produce steam to drive turbines) but does not seem to advocate using fossil fuels.


Here's the sole mention of coal or oil:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/21/02482.html

...

Much has been made of the power contained in a single uranium fuel bundle used in Ontario's CanDU reactors to produce electricity. It is supposed to be able to generate as much electricity as 380 tonnes of coal or 1,800 barrels of oil (Canadian Nuclear Association website: Nuclear Facts). Compared to the burning of fossil fuels to produce the steam to generate electric power the fuel bundle undergoes a fission process, splitting the uranium atoms to produce heat to fabricate the steam to drive turbines connected to the generators in a complicated process of electricity generation.

...

[Codeine]

34. That whole site is nothing but bullshit. nt