Are there any non-coastal nuclear power stations?

[Nihil]

All of the nuclear power stations that I am aware of are on the coast.
(I have a vague memory that this is for ease of supply of cooling water
but this might be wrong.)

How will they cope with the coming rise in sea level?

It would be an ironic twist of fate for the only mass producers of
zero-emission energy to be the earliest victims of the climate change
that they are attempting to address.

[NMDemDist2]

1. there's one here in Arizona just west of Phoenix

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is the largest nuclear electric generating site in the United States. Three (3) Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactor units each have an output of ~ 1270 MWe. Each unit has 2 reactor cooling loops, each with a 2 reactor cooling pump and a single steam generator. Arizona Public Service Company is the operator and co-owns the units with utilities in New Mexico, Texas, and California. The Palo Vede site is at Wintersberg, Arizona, 34 miles west of Phoenix. Units 1 and 2 went commercial in 1986 and Unit 3 in 1988.



http://www.nucleartourist.com/us/pvngs.htm

[Kolesar]

6. It must reuse water whereas one on the Ohio R draws fresh water

Otherwise, how could they build a steam plant in that city where there is no natural water supply? I suppose that they put plants on lakes, rivers, and seas so that they can discharge warm, partially cooled water back to the sink.

[hunter]

18. This plant uses treated sewage from Phoenix.

Power plants not near the ocean or other large bodies of water generally use evaporitive cooling. It is possible to build air cooled power plants but these are usually more expensive and not as efficient as plants cooled by water. Air cooled gas fired power plants are fairly common worldwide, especially in arid places.

[FSogol]

2. Sure, there is one at Lake Anna in VA. n/t

[liberal N proud]

3. Missouri has one or two on the river

Ohio has one on Lake Erie that can't be used.

[madrchsod]

4. we have five or six

in northern and central illinois. windpower is our next investment in northern illinois as we will have over a 100 mills in the next couple of years

[5X]

5. How can you call nuclear energy 'zero-emission'?

just because you can't see it or smell it,
doesn't mean it is not there.
It is the most toxic waste known to man.

[Kolesar]

7. Heat as an emission?

[Nihil]

10. Must admit that I wasn't considering that as an option ...

... because it is produced in large quantities by the other major
power station types too but it is a good point.

[Nihil]

9. Because it is.

Nuclear power stations do not emit CO2, NO2, SO2 into the atmosphere.
Coal, oil and gas power stations DO emit the above gases into the atmosphere.
With regard to these emissions from power stations, nuclear is "zero-emission".

Nuclear power stations do not emit particulates into the atmosphere.
Coal and oil power stations DO emit particulates into the atmosphere.
With regard to these emissions from power stations, nuclear is "zero-emission".

Nuclear power stations do not emit radioactive or heavy metal pollutants
into the atmosphere.
Coal power stations DO emit radioactive and heavy metal pollutants into
the atmosphere.
With regard to these emissions from power stations, nuclear is "zero-emission".

That's how I can call nuclear energy 'zero-emission'.
It's a statement based on fact rather than emotion.

> just because you can't see it or smell it,
> doesn't mean it is not there.
> It is the most toxic waste known to man.

Nuclear power stations do not emit toxic waste but do produce
small quantities of it, transported to controlled storage areas.
Coal & oil power stations DO emit toxic waste as well as producing
large quantities of it and scattering it across the land & sea in
very uncontrolled "storage" areas - including leaf surfaces,
groundwater pollution, acid raindrops and people's lungs.

I have been around several nuclear power stations as well as
a few hydroelectric ones, a natural gas-powered one and a
coal-fired one. (I have also been to wind-power sites, solar PV
sites, solar thermal sites and geothermal sites.)

I couldn't get anywhere near the nuclear waste as it was very
well protected indeed. I couldn't see the waste from the gas-powered
one but I could smell (some of) it. I could see, smell, taste and
feel the waste from the coal power station.

Please get a sense of perspective.

[5X]

11. One word, chernobyl. n/t

[Nihil]

12. Another word: bollocks.

If we're down to the grunting stage of communication
rather than discussing things, please consider the
following: Bhopal, Exxon Valdez, Iraq.

These (like Chernobyl) are examples of situations where
the normal, everyday operation was fine but things went
totally pear-shaped after incompetent humans screwed up.

The difference is that we have learned from Chernobyl
but insist on repeating the other mistakes.

Maybe you can try stringing a few words together now
and explaining how a normally-operating nuclear power
station is less "zero-emission" than a coal-fired plant?

[Kolesar]

13. Never Mind the Bollocks

I just had to say that.

[Massacure]

34. Chernobyl wasn't everyday operations.

Stupid people were running a risky experiment with no safety procedures in a reactor with no containment building.

The regulatory climate is a lot different in the United States. No one has died as the result of a nuclear reactor's operations in the United States.

[NickB79]

15. Two words: Global Warming

ntxt

[jpak]

16. Not if you consider the entire nuclear fuel cycle...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x38882

NUCLEAR power generates more damaging greenhouse gas emissions than gas-fired power, an Australian scientist says.

As federal and state politicians debate the merits of starting down the nuclear power path to help reduce Australia's contribution to global warming, scientists say it may not be so clean after all.

University of NSW Institute of Environmental Studies senior lecturer Dr Mark Diesendorf says nuclear power stations do not emit carbon dioxide (CO2) themselves, but the processes involved in creating nuclear energy do.

Mining, milling, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel production, power station construction and operation, storage and reprocessing of spent fuel, long-term management of radioactive waste and closing down old power stations all require the burning of fossil fuels, he says.

.....

[Dead_Parrot]

19. The same for any other metal, in fact.

Do you want to give up steel and aluminium as well?

[jpak]

20. No, just pointing that nuclear power plants are not GHG-emission-free

n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Well, they are, but the mines aren't. :-P nt

[jpak]

23. ...and that was my point...

n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

27. Also mine... (pardon the pun)

Arguing against nuclear power becasue of a shortcoming in the mining indusry is pointless. Whilst it has some merit in a hair-splitting dissection of "nuclear energy is emission-free", it carries the same weight against any other power generation. We can wave accusing fingers at the steel and aluminium in wind turbines, the cadmium in PV panels, the nickel/cadmium/lead needed for the billions of night storage batteries we would need, and of course the billions of tonnes of copper for the stator windings and transmision cables. All of these are mined and refined in a similar way as uranium.

AFAIK, lithium isn't mined in the normal manner, but extracted from brines: I'm sure it has it's own problems, though.

I agree that much mining equipment consists of big noisy diesels, and will need addressing as part of any oil-free policy, but that is a slightly different issue to power generation.

I suspect that most of the ore-processing/smelting process is electrically driven, so a nuclear-powered unranium smelting plant would produce far fewer emissions than the current, fossil-fueled plants. Likewise, of course, a solar-powered cadmium refinery would produce fewer emissions.

[Nihil]

25. And in the extract you provided it states "fossil fuels", not nuclear!

> Mining, milling, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel production, power
> station construction and operation, storage and reprocessing of spent
> fuel, long-term management of radioactive waste and closing down old
> power stations all require the burning of fossil fuels, he says.

... so if this burning of fossil fuels for the energy required in
processing, etc., was replaced by nuclear in turn, it would be completely
emission free - i.e., the pollution in the nuclear end-to-end case
currently comes from the lack of nuclear power and its substitution by
the heavily polluting fossil fuel generators!

> ... nuclear power stations do not emit carbon dioxide (CO2) themselves,
> but the processes involved in creating nuclear energy do.

So do the processes involved in the consumption of all energy, e.g., living.

If we stick to the original apples to apples comparison, my original
statement still holds. If, after introducing the obligatory banana to
load up the nuclear side of the debate, you are honest to apply the same
rules to both sides, the balance *still* holds.

[jpak]

26. LOL!!!!

In the real world, the nuclear fuel cycle runs on fossil fuels (especially uranium enrichment in the US which is a major consumer of coal-fired electricity in OH/KY/TN) and cement manufacture is still a significant source of CO2.

I supposed we could completely replace those fuels with renewable energy too....

....and if we can do that, then we can completely replace nuclear energy with energy from renewable resources and be done with it...

no bananas required.

:)

[Dead_Parrot]

28. Tell you what...

You build a PV array and battery stack using nothing but solar energy and let us know how you get on. :)

[jpak]

29. Alcoa uses hydroelectricity to smelt aluminum in Tennessee

PV grade silicon is smelted in Washington state using hydroelectricity

Hydroelectricity can be used to make the glazing too.

Solarex used PV to power its "Solar Breeder" PV module manufacturing plant in Maryland back in the '80's.

Battery stack??? Recycled car batteries manufactured using hydroelectricity.

Once PV arrays comprise a significant part of the grid, PV electricity can augment hydro-power and all the components (aluminum, glass, silicon, copper and lead) can be recycled at a fraction of the energy cost of de novo manufacture.

:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

30. So what's your point?

I seem to have missed it, since hydro-electricity could also be used to process uranium.

"Solarex used PV to power its "Solar Breeder" PV module manufacturing plant in Maryland back in the '80's."
So, they don't now? why is that?

Spot the difference:

"Once PV arrays comprise a significant part of the grid, PV electricity can augment hydro-power and all the components (aluminum, glass, silicon, copper and lead) can be recycled at a fraction of the energy cost of de novo manufacture."

Once nuclear power comprises a significant part of the grid, nuclear electricity can augment hydro-power and all the fuel (uranium) can be recycled at a fraction of the energy cost of de novo manufacture.

:rofl: (for verisimilitude)

[jpak]

32. Solarex was bought by BP back in 1999

Don't know the status of the solar breeder plant in (located Frederick MD) but BP Solar makes ~20 MW of PV per year in Frederick....

Nuclear powered PV?????

:puke:

[Dead_Parrot]

33. 20 MW of PV per year ?!

:spray:

Let's face it, Nuke powered PV manufacture is a little more likely than PV-powered ore smelting :D

[FloridaPat]

8. One near Travis CIty, Michigan. Don't forget 3Mile Island in PA.

The ones on the ocean won't cope well with rising water.

[amandabeech]

35. Do you mean Traverse City?

If you do, you are probably speaking of the old plant which was further north near Petoskey, MI. It drew water from Lake Michigan, but it has been decommissioned, and its radioactive parts have been sent to safe storage.

Much further south in Michigan, and on the Lake Michigan shore, is Palisades nuclear plant. It is hooked to the Ludington, MI, pumped storage plant, which uses Lake Michigan water. During off peak times, electricity pumps water from Lake Michigan into a much higher lake basin. During peak demand, the pumps reverse and the water flows back into Lake Michigan through generators.

The Three Mile Island plant is on the Susquehanna River, as is the Peach Blossom nuclear plant further to the south.

[NickB79]

14. There are three here in Minnesota

About as far from the coast as you can get, I believe :-) And no, none of them are on the coastline of the Great Lakes either.

[hatrack]

17. Sure, there's one in eastern Kansas

Naturally, it's right next to a big reservoir for cooling purposes, but, yeah, they're out there.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Most of them

I don't have a URL handy, but every map of nuclear power stations I've seen shows relatively few of them right on the coast. However, since most of our population is concentrated within 200 miles of a coastline, your interpretation may vary. New Jersey and California could be considered "coastal", and Pennsylvania's Tree Mile Island station is about 140 miles from the Jersey and Maryland shorelines, if my memory serves.

The reason why nuclear power plants are near population centers is because power transmission involves some pretty big losses. That's one of the reasons why superconductivity would be so important if its cost came down. We could locate nuclear, wind, solar, or any other kind of power generating stations in the middle of nowhere, and transmit it through superconducting wires across the country.

As to the coming rise in the sea level, that won't happen if the climate really is "bistable" (two stable states), and the speed of global warming kicks us into the cold/dry state. I think that's far more likely, and would stop industrial growth more effectively than warming per se. "Why?", you ask? Because the cold/dry state would be, in effect, a famine state.

We are in the early phases of living those ironic twists of fate. It's warm in North America, icy-cold in Europe, and we're all getting price-gouged. Only being at a "Peak Oil" state means that the price fluctuations aren't so much gouges anymore as a more "natural" market instability. Dress warmly.

--p!

[Nihil]

24. That's not so bad then (for you)

My knowledge was confined to UK power stations and I fear
that most are not too resilient with respect to sea-level
changes. It's good to hear that it's better in the US.

Thanks to all of you who increased my knowledge!
:hi:

[NNadir]

31. Map.

All thermal power stations require water, and many are located on coasts. Nuclear power plants are historically slightly worse thermal polluters than most coal fired plants. Most newer nuclear plants for this reason have cooling towers, which adds to the expense of the plant.

This difference has changed somewhat in recent years since many newer coal plants operate a supercritical water temperatures. Indeed, although public perception isn't aware of this, many coal stations are fitted with cooling towers.

The area off of San Onofre nuclear station in Southern California has been popular with surfers in part because the water there is somewhat warmer.

My family and I often swim in the area of the Oyster Creek nuclear station. I do not particularly notice that the water is warmer there than other areas in New Jersey, but it may be.

Many Soviet era nuclear plants used their waste heat to heat nearby homes.

Some, not all, coastal nuclear plants are elevated to some extent.

Here is a photograph of the Diablo Canyon nuclear station in California.



http://www.pge.com/education_training/about_energy/diablo_canyon/

It is reasonable to expect that all of the nuclear stations in Florida may someday be under water.