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?
Nuclear Power and water vapor emissions
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
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
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
but not at all we've talked about it many times forum : nuclear is clean and it does not reject anything (a fly flies) ...
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 ...
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
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 ...
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
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79117
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10972
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 ...
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
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions
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?
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
Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions
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
Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions
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
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13644
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1502
- Contact :
Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions
The SFEN version is not bad too
https://www.sfen.org/rgn/adapter-centra ... climatiqueA 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.
0 x
Re: Nuclear power plant and water vapor emissions
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
-
- 2 Replies
- 3379 views
-
Last message by Janic
View the latest post
22/06/21, 07:46A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 1 Replies
- 3664 views
-
Last message by izentrop
View the latest post
23/11/20, 20:55A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 2 Replies
- 3487 views
-
Last message by moinsdewatt
View the latest post
27/10/18, 21:48A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 13 Replies
- 6596 views
-
Last message by sen-no-sen
View the latest post
06/07/18, 19:24A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
-
- 115 Replies
- 33984 views
-
Last message by Did67
View the latest post
05/03/20, 17:12A subject posted in the forum : Fossil fuels: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)
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