• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Peter Beattie – coal supporter – points to water use

October 30, 2006 By Rod Adams

Peter Beattie, the Queensland, Australia Premier, does not like nuclear power. As he said back in March, 2006:

“If power is being generated by uranium we don’t need enough coal. I mean this is … black and white – I am a strong supporter of the coal industry, I’m a strong supporter of clean coal technology and I do not support the uranium industry because it will be a competing energy source,” he said.

He remains firm in his conviction that it is better to burn coal than to use uranium. The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) published a story this morning in which Mr. Beattie points to a study indicating that a typical nuclear power plant uses more cooling water than a typical coal fired plant of the same power output.

However, Mr. Beattie then confused me by claiming that meant that a “clean coal” plant would be a better fit for his arid area than a nuclear plant in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (Be careful, the next few paragraphs may cause a few glazed eyes, but the details are important here.)

The technical reason that a typical nuclear steam plant uses more cooling water than a typical coal fired plant is that light water reactors run at a lower temperature than modern coal boilers, allowing the coal plants to achieve somewhat higher thermal efficiency. The quantity of cooling water needed per unit power is directly related to the plant thermal efficiency.

That statement assumes that both plants use water fed condensers to cool the steam that comes out of the turbines and that the cooling water system uses an evaporative cooling tower that takes advantage of the latent heat of vaporization to reject the heat to the surrounding environment. Casual observers of nuclear plants will recall seeing the billowing clouds of steam that come out of the cooling towers – that is the water that is consumed during the process.

A higher efficiency steam plant still needs water and still uses cooling towers; it just uses a bit less water. In the study that Mr. Beattie pointed to, a modern coal fired steam power plant would use about 25% less water than a nuclear heated steam power plant if both used evaporative cooling systems.

(Of course, if the plants are located on the coast, neither one needs to consume fresh water in order to cool the condenser; direct cooling with sea water is a great alternative that cannot heat up the ocean. It is also possible to use a dry cooling system that uses less water, but it is also more costly in terms of additional equipment and requires continuing operating cost considerations.)

What Mr. Beattie (a politician, not an engineer or scientist) fails to understand is that a “clean” coal plant would use at least 30-40% more water than today’s typical coal stations because they would need to expend considerable quantities of power to capture, compress and transport CO2. Mr. Beattie’s comment also does not take into account the other parts of the coal cycle that consume water, including coal washing to remove contaminants and water used to suppress coal dust in transportation systems.

I also cannot neglect the opportunity to mention that it is possible to design effective coolers for nuclear plants that do not use water at all. If the plant is a nuclear gas turbine, direct cooling with atmospheric air provides sufficient efficiency while eliminating the need to consume water to move the heat out of the system and into the surrounding environment. I just happen to know of a company (Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.) that anticipates using such coolers in atomic engines destined for arid areas.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

About Rod Adams

Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • Michael Scarangella on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Gareth on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Gareth on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Atomic Energy Wells

Enough with “renewables!”

Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?

Atomic Show #303 – Bret Kugelmass, CEO Last Energy

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy