Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns
Lake Norman, N.C. - Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.
Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities may be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies.
Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer.
"Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. "You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants." He added: "This is becoming a crisis."
An Associated Press analysis of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants' turbines.
Because of the yearlong dry spell gripping the region, the water levels on those lakes and rivers are getting close to the minimums set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Over the next several months, the water could drop below the intake pipes altogether. Or the shallow water could become too hot under the sun to use as coolant.
"If water levels get to a certain point, we'll have to power it down or go off line," said Robert Yanity, a spokesman for South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., which operates the Summer nuclear plant outside Columbia, S.C.
Extending or lowering the intake pipes is not as simple at it sounds and wouldn't necessarily solve the problem. The pipes are usually made of concrete, can be up to 18 feet in diameter and can extend up to a mile. Modifications to the pipes and pump systems, and their required backups, can cost millions and take several months. If the changes are extensive, they require an NRC review that itself can take months or longer.
Even if a quick extension were possible, the pipes can only go so low. It they are put too close to the bottom of a drought-shrunken lake or river, they can suck up sediment, fish and other debris that could clog the system.
An estimated 3 million customers of the four commercial utilities with reactors in the drought zone get their power from nuclear energy. Also, the quasi-governmental Tennessee Valley Authority, which sells electricity to 8.7 million people in seven states through a network of distributors, generates 30 percent of its power at nuclear plants.
While rain and some snow fell recently, water levels across the region are still well below normal. Most of the severely affected area would need more than a foot of rain in the next three months - an unusually large amount - to ease the drought and relieve pressure on the nuclear plants. And the long-term forecast calls for more dry weather.
At Progress Energy Inc., which operates four reactors in the drought zone, officials warned in November that the drought could force it to shut down its Harris reactor near Raleigh, according to documents obtained by the AP. The water in Harris Lake stands at 218.5 feet - just 3 1/2 feet above the limit set in the plant's license.
Lake Norman near Charlotte is down to 93.7 feet - less than a foot above the minimum set in the license for Duke Energy Corp.'s McGuire nuclear plant. The lake was at 98.2 feet just a year ago.
"We don't know what's going to happen in the future. We know we haven't gotten enough rain, so we can't rule anything out," said Duke spokeswoman Rita Sipe. "But based on what we know now, we don't believe we'll have to shut down the plants."
During Europe's brutal 2006 heat wave, French, Spanish and German utilities were forced to shut down some of their nuclear plants and reduce power at others because of low water levels - some for as much as a week.
If a prolonged shutdown like that were to happen in the Southeast, utilities in the region might have to buy electricity on the wholesale market, and the high costs could be passed on to customers.
"Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour," said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co. "It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power - especially during the summer."
At a nuclear plant, water is also used to cool the reactor core and to create the steam that drives the electricity-generating turbines. But those are comparatively small amounts of water, circulating in what are known as closed systems - that is, the water is constantly reused. Water for those two purposes is not threatened by the drought.
Instead, the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region's reactors every day to cool used steam. Water sucked from lakes and rivers passes through pipes, which act as a condenser, turning the steam back into water. The outside water never comes into direct contact with the steam or any nuclear material.
At some plants - those with tall, Three Mile Island-style cooling towers - a lot of the water travels up the tower and is lost to evaporation. At other plants, almost all of the water is returned to the lake or river, though significantly hotter because of the heat absorbed from the steam.
Progress spokeswoman Julie Hahn said the Harris reactor, for example, sucks up 33 million gallons a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation via its big cooling towers. Duke's McGuire plant draws in more than 2 billion gallons a day, but most of it is pumped back to its source.
Nuclear plants are subject to restrictions on the temperature of the discharged coolant, because hot water can kill fish or plants or otherwise disrupt the environment. Those restrictions, coupled with the drought, led to the one-day shutdown Aug. 16 of a TVA reactor at Browns Ferry in Alabama.
The water was low on the Tennessee River and had become warmer than usual under the hot sun. By the time it had been pumped through the Browns Ferry plant, it had become hotter still - too hot to release back into the river, according to the TVA. So the utility shut down a reactor.
David Lochbaum, nuclear project safety director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, warned that nuclear plants are not designed to take the wear and tear of repeatedly stopping and restarting.
"Nuclear plants are best when they flatline - when they stay up and running or shut down for long periods to refuel," Lochbaum said. "It wears out piping, valves, motors."
Both the industry and NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said plants can shut down and restart without problems.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press

24 Comments so far
Show AllSounds like they deserve it. SHUT THEM DOWN!
Nuclear power generation, far from being a solution to climate change, is joining the growing list of its victims.
Its fun to go swimming in the winter!
The plants with cooling towers use a lot less water. Might be time to get them in the budget along those lakes and rivers.
A lot less water? The extraordinary amount of water needed by nuke plants forced Germany within the past 2 years to reduce energy production at plants.
GO GREEN!
Big Oil, Coal & Nukes- all incredibly subsidized by the government.
Stop the madness.
We're going to have plenty of water when the ice melts in Anarctica.
Bill:
Thanks for the info. From what I've read, France and India do plan to build fast reactors to burn up waste. They have some comprehensive national plans to employ nuclear power. The French "Phenix" didn't work out, and the Indians are building one right now.
I also remember reading some of the promotions for the Argonne IFR that claimed there is so much DU just sitting around after years of uranium refinement, that it would be essentially a free fuel for years. Maybe hundreds of years. Better use than punching holes in Iraqi armor. I would think the energy mining industries would be extremely unhappy if DU, and then natural uranium, in small amounts started replacing coal and expensive processed uranium.
Kem P is gonna accuse us of being nuclear pitch men. I just hope things get moving on global warming in the next administration. The answer to global warming and energy independence is not grabbing Iraq's oil.
Vote Green!
Sorry. Less water than same power output without cooling towers. The cooling towers return most of the water to the loop and you just have to replace the evaporation. (I'm not an expert. They do build them on a river, even with the towers.) Water from a stream goes in cold and comes out hot, and you have to have the minimum stream flow or level.
My problem is why does Limerick (PA) always pass the ground water radiation test, the alarms never go off (unless an employee with radon saturated clothes walks in)..., but baby teeth have elevated strontium 90 within 10 miles or so of the plant? And childhood lukemia is "statistically significantly" higher in the county around the plant. Something wrong there. Some nukes have the problem, some don't. One in Germany has a pretty bad cancer cluster. It was posted on CD a few weeks ago.
Maybe the Canadians could build nukes along the St Lawrence and connectors to pipe the electricity down here. Any local radiation problem goes down the river into the sea with no nukes in population centers. They are uranium and nuke happy, and we import EVERYTHING, and let other countries deal with the dirt.
Right KEM, Right!
(I dig your sense of humor!) Sick, gallows humor that's entirely appropriate.
Don't say it around neocon mixed company however, they may take you seriously and start planning to run salt water through plain metal pipes.....
I needed that.
I sometimes sit around and wonder: What's going to get us first?
Hot preemptive nuke first-strike?
Gene-splicing pollution GMO foods?
Bird Flu from hell?
Wall to wall nuke plant/terrorist targets?
Methane Burp?
Blackwater/FEMA prison camps
Pytoplankton (sp?) death/suffication?
Republican slave plantations?
Costal flooding/mass migration?
Famine?
World-Wide Depression?
World War?
There's so much staring us in the face right now, just forget about looking for nearby nemesis asteroids or Yosemite Volcanoes.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.....
Billy:
This article appears to be just anti nuke. Nukes do use more water than coal as they have a lower thermal efficiency and usually built for a higher energy output.
The environmental community has become divided on nukes. Most are still "No nukes period. End of story." A minority considers nuclear the lesser of two evils
compared to coal, and the only alternative that can make a real difference (reducing CO2 emissions) right now. James Lovelock is one prominent environmentalist in the "lets give nuclear another look" camp.
New Brunswick makes sense. Its close to the Boston NYC corridor. They can do the same thing in Ontario.
One potential future conflict of interest is fast neutron reactors. These things have the potential to burn DU (leftover from fuel processing) and reduce or eliminate uranium mining for years. In Canada, the nuclear industry seems based on selling uranium. They will build and support a "CANDU" anywhere in he world, and the package probably includes Canadian uranium. The prospect of relatively limitless and free energy must worry both the coal and uranium mining industries.
Of course there's a drought. Mother Earth is angry.
How else could she stop the nukes?
bbr-001,
It's not that you're pro-nuke for monetary considerations only. It's that you are proposing marrying us into a technology that forces us to be dependent on a fuel that is in short supply and can easily be monopolized through ownership of Uranium mines (e.g. the massive holdings of the Royal Family) and the stated option of the government pegging the dollar not to oil, but rather to Uranium.
This seems all too convenient when you consider the dismal hazards inflicted on society, not the least being the attractive terror targets you put in place to anybody who has 911 aspirations in any city that has one of these disliked menaces in their backyards.
Not to beat a dead horse here, but residential solar solves two of our problems. It gets us hooked on an infinite supply of energy which can't be manipulated by an elite energy cartel in the sunny regions, and it redistributes wealth to the masses instead of keeping it locked up in the "One Percent Club."
The inefficiency or alleged carbon output per KW/hr of Siemans silicone panels for example could be improved upon by more research (say divert about half the one trillion dollar defense budget to solar panels for a year.)
I would be pro-nuke if it was managed not by private sector earnings based CEO's but by co-ops owned by the little guy with no possibility of takeover and with beefed up safety provisions like every employee was on public camera all the time, and the penalty for coverup was slow waterboarding until death.
But this does still not address the issue that every airplane ever produce has produced fatalities. If we increase the number of nuke plants in the U.S. we are going to have to admit that the odds of a China Syndrome go way up, maybe even become a statistical certainty.
All just my layman's opinions.
Bill is fusion safer? (assuming we could develop it with the defense budget for a few years.) I know it occurs in the sun, so that means it's definitely possible. How would it work? Would the temps be higher?
pac
Pac:
All valid points. I don't own a dime of energy stock or work for anything connected with utilities... I do live about 30 miles from the Limerick PA station, as well as within 100 miles of maybe 6 or more others, and it is a concern.
It was years ago, but the TMI incident was badly mismanaged because public "panic" was to be avoided. We need the truth about every incident and how the utility plans to prevent it in the future.
I don't like nuclear power, but coal and GHG emissions have to stop, and you don't run elevators, steel mills, waterworks... on solar panels or wind farms. Its the dilemma of our times (other than the neocons ruining everyhthing).
I hope this post isn't taken to be an endorsement of nuclear power. However, in all fairness, some things must be noted:
ALL steam cycle plants, whatever the fuel source, require large amounts of cooling water. This is because the steam cycle itself (i.e., boiling water to make steam, using the steam to turn a turbine, and then condensing the steam back to water to start the cycle over)has a maximum efficiency on the order of 40%. That means that 60% of the heat added to the water is "waste" heat, i.e., unusuable. There are complicated but very real reasons of thermodynamics that makes this true (study the concepts of entropy, enthalpy, and the Carnot cycle to learn more). So what does this really mean? That yes, all steam cycle plants potentially face the same problem with cooling water. Nuclear plants may be more susceptible for several reasons: As noted in another post, they are somewhat less efficient than other steam cycle plants; nukes are generally bigger in terms of megawatt output; and nukes are heavily regulated - maybe not enough, but more so than other power plants.
My problem with this article is that is ignores the same issue with other plants in order to make an implied statement about nuclear power in general. There are many real concerns about the use of nuclear power. An article that addressed those issues would could provide meaningful information for the nuclear power debate. Instead, we get incomplete science to lead us to the conclusion that nuclear power is undesirable. So it is still PROPAGANDA, not informed debate.
But the real issue is never brought up: The way we produce and use electricity is contributing to the death of the planet. And all the assumptions are that we must find some less environmentally damaging way to produce the electricity we need. I certainly agree with that; however, we could immediately end the need for the current operating nuclear plants by reducing our consumption of electricity by 20% (the percentage provided by nuclear plants). How difficult would this be? Not very difficult or expensive. But it would require us to DO SOMETHING akin to sacrifice.
"i am constantly awaiting a rebirth of wonder...."
Thanks Bill,
You're the greatest.
pac
And thanks bbr-001 and everybody else. I was just razzing you about being paid, although we all have to make a living and it does happen.
Here's to better/cheaper kilowatts in the future.