Re: Norm's final words on dead fish

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 11/16/01 1:49:56 PM Mountain Standard Time, ncohen12@HOME.COM writes:



> 2a) Part of the concern is the volume of water used by the intake
>
> system. Salem Units 1 and 2 together use 3.024 BILLION gallons of water
>
> EACH DAY to cool the plants. In one year, water equal to the entire
>
> volume of the Delaware Bay is used in cooling Salem 1/2.  I suggest that
>
> other examples of cooling water use many have mentioned, do not use such
>
> tremendous volumes of water.
>
>
> (3) Thermal shock; There is a difference of about 10 degrees F between
>
> intake and exhaust water. This is high enough to kill marine life. No
>
> one, including PSEG, argues this.


As it happens, we deal with thermal water pollution in our textbook (Vesilind, Peirce, and Weiner Environmental Engineering) and I taught water quality and the associated lab for a couple of decades (that's by way of qualification).  All states have some sort of regulation governing the temperature of water that is released into a natural waterway, and that also depends on the flow rate of the waterway -- how much water is available and at what ambient temperature , for mixing with the hot effluent so that the ambient temperature standard is not exceeded,  In a nuclear plant (just as in any thermal generating plant) as much of the heat as possible is used to generate steam to turn the turbines to produce the electricity.  At present, coal plants are, on the average, about 20% more efficient (in terms of conversion of heat to electricity) than nukes, but that is largely a mat!

ter of technological refinement.   Nukes (like anything else) (a) try to use as much of the generated heat as possible, and (b) must abide by the effluent and ambient temperature standards in any case.


Moreover, it is not the total amount of water that any single industry uses (and it's not necessary to capitalize either -- we can read "billions" just as easily as "BILLIONS")    but the amount of water used for cooling relative to the amount of water in the stream (First Law of Thermodynamics -- the law of conservation of energy).  I used to live in Bellingham, WA, where a pulp mill, a chlor-alkali plant, an alcohol plant, a primary aluminum smelter, and four oil refineries all emitted  process cooling water into Bellingham Bay, which fortunately is pretty big.  I might point out that the fish loved the warm water!   


Moreover, the Second Law suggests that the greater the temperature difference between the high end  and the low end of an engine cycle, the more efficient the engine. This again bolsters the argument that any thermal energy conversion process uses the maximum amount of heat and rejects the minimum amount.\


Cold water does damage too.  Washington State water quality regulations, for example, address the "too cold" question as well as the "too hot" question.


I would only reiterate that hot water effluent is a weak (there.  is that better than stupid?) argument to bring against nuclear power plants, and bringing it hardly bolsters the anti-nukes' credibility.


Maury -- what else are you serving at the fish fry?   


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com