tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post3282914964714424135..comments2023-04-27T11:21:20.431+02:00Comments on stickman's corral: Nuclear and WaterGrant McDermotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-66229847345962076662011-03-18T17:17:57.785+01:002011-03-18T17:17:57.785+01:00Lou, thanks for your thoughts.
(For anyone intere...Lou, thanks for your thoughts.<br /><br />(For anyone interested in water, energy and climate, I highly recommend a visit to Lou's blog: http://www.grinzo.com/energy)<br /><br />Ya, it's always a shock when you see stats like the one you quoted for California, which indicate the extent to which water and energy are intertwined. I didn't mention it in my post, but I'm sure you know (those others might not) that the thermoelectric power industry accounts for approximately <a href="http://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/docs/121-RptToCongress-EWwEIAcomments-FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">40% of total water withdrawals</a> in the US... A figure that places it on par, if not higher, than agriculture. <br /><br />Of course, the majority of the water used for electricity generation is returned and agriculture is much more "consumptive" in that sense. Nevertheless, returning cooling water to its source certainly has adverse effects of its own; as the above discussion clearly highlights.<br /><br />I think you are absolutely right about water becoming a major topic of the next few decades. IMHO, it will be one of the defining issues of the years to come.Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-29470924029288058802011-03-17T22:41:32.803+01:002011-03-17T22:41:32.803+01:00The energy water nexus is both fascinating and cri...The energy water nexus is both fascinating and critical, whether one is talking about nuclear power plants, other thermoelectric plants, hydro, or the amount of electricity used to treat and move water around (something like 19% of all electricity demand in California, I believe).<br /><br />Perhaps the nastiest detail is the one mentioned in the text you quoted, nuclear plants being forced to throttle down or shut down completely because of too warm water or simply not enough of it. Some environmental experts I've talked to in the US don't realize it happened here in 2007 and 2010. This sort of service interruption adds a very ugly level of complexity to planning for new plants; suddenly planners can no longer look at the history of a river flowing through a given area, but have to look to climate experts for predictions of what might happen during the lifetime of the plant. And as we've seen, the lifetime of nuclear plants is routinely extended by 10 or 20 years thanks to the cost of new construction and licensing difficulties.<br /><br />And then we have Lake Mead in the US, the body behind the Hoover Dam, where the water level has been declining steadily for years and is currently near a crisis level. Another example is hydro fed by melt water from the Andes, which will become a less than reliable source in the coming years.<br /><br />Between the E/W nexus, water for agriculture and direct consumption, and rising sea levels, I get the feeling we'll be talking a lot about water over the next few decades.Lou Grinzohttp://www.grinzo.com/energy/noreply@blogger.com