Comments on: US water stress may drive shift to renewable power

By: michael mariotte

michael mariotte — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:35:00 +0000

In reply to James Francis. It depends. For reactors with cooling towers, there are significant water losses. Less so with one-through cooling systems, but for those reactors, the water re-enters the river or other source at a much higher temperature, which has proven devastating to marine life at every site using once-through systems.

By: RussellLowes

RussellLowes — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:41:00 +0000

Thanks for putting out this article. I have one criticism, however. You are talking gross water use here. There should be a distinction. These plants do have an extremely high gross water use, and also have an extremely high net water use. The difference can be illuminating. For example, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, uses a net water intake of 63,000 acre-feet per year. However the gross water intake which recycles about 20 times if I recall (see the “Got Water?” report from the Union of Concerned Scientists). The net water use is the water that actually is lost to the environment through evaporation, be it a warmed river that then evaporates more water, or as in the case of Palo Verde’s treatment plant water, three cooling towers per reactor (the most towers/reactor in the nation due to the highest temp for a nuke in the nation).

By: James Francis

James Francis — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:52:00 +0000

yes, a nuclear plant may withdraw 45,000 gallons per MW-hr, but that then goes back in the river. A bit more may evaporate, but nowhere NEAR 45,000 gallons. Sounds like someone’s out to scare people with bogeymen.