The Effect of Climate Change on Nuclear Reactor Cooling Will Be Studied at Argonne National Lab.

[NNadir]

Argonne researching “climate-ready” nuclear plant design (Nuclear News, April 24, 2024.)

Scientists at Argonne National Laboratory have partnered with Washington state–based Energy Northwest to look at alternative ways to cool nuclear reactors as climate change impacts relied-upon water sources.

Argonne will use funding from the Department of Energy’s Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear to study climate-ready options for nuclear reactor designs. The goal is to develop a backup plan for nuclear cooling systems in the event that primary water sources are compromised by global warming—and Energy Northwest is partnering in the study to consider cooling options as river conditions may change near its Columbia nuclear power plant in Richland, Wash.

“It’s a very commendable way of thinking about climate change—to plan before doing something versus not thinking about it and trying to adapt afterwards,” Rao Kotamarthi, senior scientist in Argonne’s Environmental Science Division, said of Energy Northwest’s efforts. “A lot of people are confused about how to use the global climate data that exists, to make it actionable. At Argonne, we are working to provide very regional climate data in a form that industry can act on...”

...Cooling options: Vilim said local flowing water is the most economical and best way to cool a reactor, which is the current design of Washington’s nuclear plant. But changing climate models predict hotter, drier days in that region, which will affect the volume, flow, and temperature of the Columbia River.

“Dry cooling is not quite as efficient or as economical as wet cooling, but if wet cooling isn’t available, it’s your best option,” Vilim said.

Dry cooling uses ambient air circulated across a reactor’s heat exchangers instead of relying on a river or lake to conduct heat away from a reactor, using fans or physics similar to those in a house chimney or car radiator.

Recently I had an unpleasant conversation (is there any other kind?) with an antinuke who displayed phenomenal ignorance of nuclear technology (is there any other kind of antinuke other than those who display phenomenal ignorance of what they deign to criticize?) who pointed, albeit in a very, very stupid way, making up numbers as it went along, to the fact that nuclear plants, like many gas and coal plants, require cooling water.

It is true nuclear plants require cooling water, albeit nothing like the ignorant antinuke implied. This aspect is a function of the fact that the US nuclear fleet was largely built in the 7th and 8th decade of the 20th century, where Rankine devices were the "thing" for all thermal power plants, nuclear plants being a subset of thermal plants. All Rankine plants have low thermal efficiency, taken, as a rule of thumb, at around 33%.

Antinuke mysticism has left us with climate change, and in another case of arsonists complaining about forest fires, I suppose this reality, which is the worst (and only) major environmental effect associated with nuclear plants, will drive antinukes to help their fossil fuel friends by advocating for the closure of nuclear plants, rather than refurbishment.

The Biden administration, along with Governors like Gretchen Whitmer, is working to sustain and restore nuclear infrastructure. In terms of support for nuclear energy infrastructure - motivated by the best reason for doing so, climate change - the Biden administration is clearly the best in modern times. As a long time advocate of nuclear energy as our last best hope for addressing climate change - reactionary funding of so called "renewable energy" is a grotesque and extremely expensive failure at doing so - I am very pleased that the leader of our party has set aside the rote antinukism that has been our biggest policy stain, our most dubious position.

The absolute failure to address climate change by any means, can and will however, impact all thermal power plants, plants which overwhelmingly supply the nation's electricity, led in modern times by gas plants, followed by coal followed by nuclear. Although nuclear energy has been the most successful at ameliorating climate change of all technologies, accounting (as of this writing) more than a year's worth (35 billion tons) of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide being dumped by fossil fuel powered devices, it is vulnerable to climate change. Shutting nuclear infrastructure thus represents another potential feedback loop that must be arrested.

I'm glad to see one of our nation's premier national labs on the case.

It is my hope that many of the new designs in the new era of nuclear energy creativity that has returned to our country, will minimize the need for cooling by exergy recovery, that is putting the heat to use in what are called "heat exchanger networks" connected with the general approach known as "process intensification." This is an approach of recovery more of the energy of heat, simply efficiency improvements. I understand the new generation - the generation we screwed by my generation attacking nuclear energy while ignoring fossil fuels, as ass-backwards as you can get - is on the case; I note that young people represent the largest class of pronuclear activists.

Nevertheless, we have to preserve to the best of our ability our existing nuclear infrastructure, and it does seem that some retrofits will need to be designed to address the problem. We can no longer tolerate the German/New York/and other policy areas replacing clean nuclear energy with filthy and deadly fossil fuels. The Argonne effort is therefore worthy of applause.