Post by Chris Hogg
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:07:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Post by The Natural Philosopher Post by Chris Hogg Post by % Post by Chris Hogg Post by % Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not?
Essentially because its cheaper and easier
to pump sea or lake water thru the nuke.
So technically possible, then.
Even cooling towers need a supply of water as some steam is lost...
Well quite, but not nearly as much as direct cooling.
There's an interesting article by US energy supplier on this
Combining with some other info the answer is that its a balance between
technical financial and environmental factors.
1/. If you have seawater, or a very large lake, its much colder, and
much cheaper to use it direct, and a bit of warm water going in the sea
simply makes a brilliant micro environment for some fish and crustaceans
2/. If all you have is a river, or small lake, not only is it not very
cold, the environmentalists may get shirty if you warm it up to indoor
swimming pool temperatures, so instead of using it direct (in France in
hot summers, they do shut/throttle back a few river based nukes), using
it to essentially lose the heat in water *evaporation* in a cooling
tower is judged less harmful...
100 US nuclear plants do use cooling towers.
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast was
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
― Leo Tolstoy