Nuclear Power Can't Stand the Heat

Public Citizen, a national nonprofit public interest organization, has compiled a policy brief with case studies on the conflicts between nuclear power production and water.

As we look to transition away from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy supplies, nuclear power has been gaining a lot of vocal supporters who see nuclear power as a time-tested source of carbon free electricity. While their support of nuclear power isn't without merit, its important to consider the water demands associated with nuclear.

As Public Citizen points out in their a two-page policy brief called Nuclear Power Can't Stand the Heat (PDF):

Nuclear reactors produce electricity through the heat generated by splitting atoms. The heat is used to create steam, which turns a turbine hooked up to a generator that supplies electricity to the grid. Water from nearby rivers or lakes is used to cool the steam. Water used for cooling elements in the generators is usually heated to 125 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) and then air-cooled in towers to 95ºF before being recirculated. But when the air temperature outside rises above 95ºF, the water in the towers cannot cool sufficiently and the reactor cannot run at peak capacity. Moreover, if the water is too hot, it cannot be returned to the river or lake without jeopardizing aquatic life.

To support their case that water constraints pose serious risks for nuclear power production, Public Citizen has compiled a list of specific instances where nuclear power production was either curtailed due to water constraints, or established environmental regulations had to be lifted in order to continue producing electricity at nuclear power plants. The references for these examples can be found by clicking here.

Nuclear power may very well play a role in our energy future. I personally believe that all options should be left on the table but we need to seriously weigh the pros and cons of any strategy before jumping in - especially as they relate to water, the resource most affected by climate change. While I've heard strong arguments both for and against nuclear power, I've found myself increasingly skeptical of the claims made by nuclear supporters.

As Joe Romm over at Climate Progress has pointed out, financial rather than environmental concerns might ultimately limit the role of nuclear power production. In the first article featured on Romm's excellent An Introduction to Nuclear Power page, he explains:

A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates!

This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today — and ten times the cost of energy efficiency.

Not only is energy efficiency cheaper - only 1/10th cost! - than nuclear power, but remember, every kilowatt hour of electricity saved in the U.S. saves an average of 2 gallons of water.