Nuclear Power and water vapor emissions

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
valentmi
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 22/08/09, 23:37
Location: Chambéry

Nuclear Power and water vapor emissions




by valentmi » 04/10/09, 20:03

Hello,

the first greenhouse gas is water vapor I want to know what is the amount of water vapor produced by a nuclear power plant to see if it is negligible or not since our new green policies and speak only CO2 not other greenhouse gas.
Is there a publication on this subject?
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 04/10/09, 20:46

Image

Image

As big as it almost pararaître I think it is totally insignificant in relation to the climate machine sun.
Can be locally for those who have the "chance" to be under the prevailing wind behind the power station, and then as a bonus they are entitled to gaseous emissions ... other more sympathetic .....

http://stopcivaux.free.fr/civaux/rejets_gazeux.html

Image
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 06/10/09, 15:24

but not at all we've talked about it many times forum : nuclear is clean and it does not reject anything (a fly flies) ...

Flytox wrote:As big as it almost pararaître I think it is totally insignificant in relation to the climate machine sun.

as electricity production from nuclear power ...

then yes H2O is not a diatomic molecule (as O2) and produces infrared radiation source of greenhouse gases.

Q: H2O this is it natural or artificial?

PS: the fossil oil released is released from artificial origin, ie "by the hand of man"

A: totally artificial, such as depleted uranium, thus making it a well GHG ...
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 06/10/09, 18:05

I agree: as spectacular as these towers may seem, to compare the evaporation of the oceans under the influence of the sun (do not forget that all this water évaoprée falls as rain, only part of which is in rivers / rivers, a small portion is evaporated in a small country only ... So this is certainly el'odre of the peanuts!

Do not forget that the vegetation itself also of considerable qunatités evaporates (transpiration) and so ... it can leave Tranquiles plants that point of view ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 06/10/09, 18:34

Jancovici had calculated H2O emissions from combustion of fossil fuels.

It was very little compared to that of the natural evaporation cycle ... I do not know the exact number anymore but it must be found on its website ...

In short if for oil and gas is peanuts for the nuke is even more peanuts ...

It prevents, with fossils, the atmosphere is depleted in O2 to enrich H2O and it is not necessarily trivial ... with nuclear ca remaining water without chemical transformation! Just a change of state ...

To answer the question it would be necessary to take stock of the NPP park. It will give you a good approximation. By cons I do not know what proportion of energy goes into steam (it depends on the ambient temperature is not used all the time). Moreover, Fessenheim does not even have a cooling tower: the flow of the rhin suffices (to remain in the norms of warming to the rejections).

ps: the nuke ago when even the local climate impact, regional view, there is more fog and snow more easily next to the nuclear power plants ...
0 x
valentmi
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 3
Registration: 22/08/09, 23:37
Location: Chambéry

Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions




by valentmi » 18/01/21, 13:55

I found this on https://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/
but they do not cite their source
The water circuit of a reactor which, in the form of pressurized steam, has driven the turbine must be cooled by water pumped from an aquatic environment. In the “closed circuit” system (see figure), the water withdrawal for a 1 to 000 MW reactor is of the order of 1 m300 / sec. A third of this water is evaporated by a cooling tower. Thus the two reactors of the Golfech power station take in the Garonne in the 3 million m3 per year and their towers evaporate 220 million.
20 million m3 or Tons per reactor per year is this negligible?
0 x
Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions




by Rajqawee » 18/01/21, 15:47

valentmi wrote:I found this on https://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/
but they do not cite their source
The water circuit of a reactor which, in the form of pressurized steam, has driven the turbine must be cooled by water pumped from an aquatic environment. In the “closed circuit” system (see figure), the water withdrawal for a 1 to 000 MW reactor is of the order of 1 m300 / sec. A third of this water is evaporated by a cooling tower. Thus the two reactors of the Golfech power station take in the Garonne in the 3 million m3 per year and their towers evaporate 220 million.
20 million m3 or Tons per reactor per year is this negligible?


See http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/meteo ... ph%C3%A8re.

We are therefore talking about 20 million m3, or 0,02 km3, in 129000 km3.

In addition, apart from the absolutely tiny volume, it must be remembered that this water will condense again to form precipitation. Regulation is therefore carried out very quickly.
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions




by Bardal » 18/01/21, 19:56

Rajqawee wrote:
valentmi wrote:I found this on https://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/
but they do not cite their source
The water circuit of a reactor which, in the form of pressurized steam, has driven the turbine must be cooled by water pumped from an aquatic environment. In the “closed circuit” system (see figure), the water withdrawal for a 1 to 000 MW reactor is of the order of 1 m300 / sec. A third of this water is evaporated by a cooling tower. Thus the two reactors of the Golfech power station take in the Garonne in the 3 million m3 per year and their towers evaporate 220 million.
20 million m3 or Tons per reactor per year is this negligible?


See http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/meteo ... ph%C3%A8re.

We are therefore talking about 20 million m3, or 0,02 km3, in 129000 km3.

In addition, apart from the absolutely tiny volume, it must be remembered that this water will condense again to form precipitation. Regulation is therefore carried out very quickly.


Indeed, it is the fact that this water will condense, in the form of rain, in the very short term (a few days or a few weeks) which constitutes the essential point of this problem; water enters a brief cycle, and is therefore not stored in the atmosphere, unlike CO2 (at least in the quantities involved in the combustion of fossil fuels) which will be stored and will increase its impact year after year .

On the other hand, it must be admitted that a withdrawal of 1 m3 / s / nuclear unit is not trivial, and can constitute a limiting factor for a river with low water in summer; fortunately, a power station in summer runs at low power, thereby reducing the offtake.
1 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions




by izentrop » 18/01/21, 20:03

The SFEN version is not bad too
A nuclear reactor uses around 100 m000 of water per year for the primary and secondary circuits. Depending on the availability of water, two cooling modes are used for the tertiary circuit. When water is abundant (seaside, estuary, large rivers), cooling is done in an open circuit. The water taken passes through the condenser tubes then returns to the middle. The heating is a few degrees and about 3m50 / s of water are needed for a 3 MW reactor.

When the water resource is less important, cooling is done in a closed circuit. The water circulating in a loop in the condenser is cooled by an ascending air current in air-cooling towers. The heat is evacuated by the water vapor which forms the plume above the towers. A continuous water make-up (2 m3 / s) compensates for the water evaporated in the towers (0,8 m3 / s) and renews the water in the condensers and limits their fouling. In this type of closed circuit, the heating of the water in the watercourse does not exceed a few tenths of a degree during hot periods.

The required water intake is 150 to 180 m3 / MWh (1 million m500 per year) for an open circuit, 3 m6 / MWh for a closed circuit (3 million m60 / year). In an open circuit, the water withdrawn is completely and immediately returned to the medium; the water consumption (evaporated water) is 3 to 2 m3 / MWh for a closed circuit.
https://www.sfen.org/rgn/adapter-centra ... climatique
0 x
Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions




by Rajqawee » 19/01/21, 10:31

bardal wrote:
Rajqawee wrote:
valentmi wrote:I found this on https://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/
but they do not cite their source
The water circuit of a reactor which, in the form of pressurized steam, has driven the turbine must be cooled by water pumped from an aquatic environment. In the “closed circuit” system (see figure), the water withdrawal for a 1 to 000 MW reactor is of the order of 1 m300 / sec. A third of this water is evaporated by a cooling tower. Thus the two reactors of the Golfech power station take in the Garonne in the 3 million m3 per year and their towers evaporate 220 million.
20 million m3 or Tons per reactor per year is this negligible?


See http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/meteo ... ph%C3%A8re.

We are therefore talking about 20 million m3, or 0,02 km3, in 129000 km3.

In addition, apart from the absolutely tiny volume, it must be remembered that this water will condense again to form precipitation. Regulation is therefore carried out very quickly.


Indeed, it is the fact that this water will condense, in the form of rain, in the very short term (a few days or a few weeks) which constitutes the essential point of this problem; water enters a brief cycle, and is therefore not stored in the atmosphere, unlike CO2 (at least in the quantities involved in the combustion of fossil fuels) which will be stored and will increase its impact year after year .

On the other hand, it must be admitted that a withdrawal of 1 m3 / s / nuclear unit is not trivial, and can constitute a limiting factor for a river with low water in summer; fortunately, a power station in summer runs at low power, thereby reducing the offtake.


Indeed, cooling can impact the micro-region due to its water withdrawal, I had not especially thought about it. It remains manageable, as you point out, and IZ also behind.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 306 guests