Nuclear cogeneration

[Christophe]

Some time ago I had fun calculating the number of nuclear reactors it would take to heat, cogeneration, all homes in France. See article: https://www.econologie.com/rendement-ce ... nucleaire/

Following this topic: heating-insulation/heating-oil-boiler-with-electricity-t4668.html a message revives the idea of ​​nuclear cogeneration, I created this specific topic on the idea of ​​​​a (very hypothetical) nuclear cogeneration of which here are the 1st approximations:

These 6 GW (losses from a nuclear power plant) are "evacuated" in the cooling towers of French power stations, there is one tower per reactor (you can therefore easily know the number of reactors in a power plant by counting the number of turns).

The heating needs of a modern house are roughly (smoothed over the year) 60 W per m2. That is to say for a house of 100 m2, 6 kW. The thermal energy "lost" of a single plant with 2 reactors therefore corresponds to the heating of a million houses!

Assuming (which is not the case but it is for the image) that this energy was recoverable in the form of cogeneration, 14 16 to nuclear reactors would be enough to heat the whole of France without any consumption of heating or electrical or fuel oil or gas!

[loop]

Hello

I will install a wind turbine in their cooling tower
It seems that the draft is "DEADLY"

What do you think Jonah?

A+

[Christophe]

Well, that's a bit of the idea of vortex towers

[loop]

Yes except that there is nothing to build
When we know that 70% energy is deliberately wasted in the name of the non-release of CO2

We can hope that a day soon, the boss of EDF will have a hint of common sense and admit that we have gone wrong with the current design of nuclear power plants



A+

[Christophe]

When we know that 70% energy is deliberately wasted in the name of the non-release of CO2

uh:

a) it's not deliberately these are the laws of thermodynamics

b) there is not really much better for electricity generation (combined cycle = 54% yield).

[Capt_Maloche]

The RT 2005 takes as a return on the 2.58 power generation compared to the primary energy used, which amounts to an overall yield of 39%.

This is a coefficient of increase used for example for energy diagnoses.
for example a fireplace that consumes 2000 kw.h electric heating per year must display 2000x2.58 = 5160 Kw.h per year on the diagnosis, heating with electricity is not advantageous with respect to the primary energy consumption.

On the other hand, fossil fuels have a coefficient of 1

[Christophe]

heating with electricity is not advantageous with regard to the primary energy consumption.

Oh, you see! The voice of reason you come here !!

But what else counts besides the primary energy for the planet and the depletion of resources?

In a DPE it is well the kWh EP which are indicated! Thanks for the 2.58 I did not know the exact value.

[loop]

Hello

You are not going to make me believe that there is no possible revaluation of the heat exchange during cooling in the towers
Although it is essential to cool the secondary circuit of the reactor, the evaporation of the cooling water is there to capture the calories, in other words, it releases free steam
Why not redo this water?
There must be possible applications near the power plant
Unfortunately, as much electricity is transmitted well, the heat not at all

A+

[bham]

There must be possible applications near the power plant
Unfortunately, as much electricity is transmitted well, the heat not at all A+

I had seen that beside a nuclear power station (I do not know where), there were greenhouses that were heated with the hot water of the plant. but it's very punctual. It would be interesting to use this energy lost in the atmosphere.

[freddau]

And I had heard in another project, moselle I think, that the heat was utulized to dry wood.