Peter Beattie says a study commissioned by the State Government shows nuclear plants use 25 per cent more water than coal fired stations.Not a real surprise, as our friend Robert Merkel would tell us, as Australia sits on abundant reserves of coal (as well as uranium).
He says it is water that is not available given the drought.
The Prime Minister has said he believes nuclear power is part of the solution to global warming, but Mr Beattie says there are better alternatives.
"What we need to do is be proactive and by that I mean we need to go out there and get clean coal technology and that's very important," he said.
But this is the Blogosphere, and Beattie doesn't have the last word. And that's where we pick up with our friend Rod Adams:
What Mr. Beattie (a politician, not an engineer or scientist) fails to understand is that a "clean" coal plant would use at least 30-40% more water than today's typical coal stations because they would need to expend considerable quantities of power to capture, compress and transport CO2. Mr. Beattie's comment also does not take into account the other parts of the coal cycle that consume water, including coal washing to remove contaminants and water used to suppress coal dust in transportation systems.Another anti-nuke fallacy debunked. Next!
I also cannot neglect the opportunity to mention that it is possible to design effective coolers for nuclear plants that do not use water at all. If the plant is a nuclear gas turbine, direct cooling with atmospheric air provides sufficient efficiency while eliminating the need to consume water to move the heat out of the system and into the surrounding environment. I just happen to know of a company (Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.) that anticipates using such coolers in atomic engines destined for arid areas.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Australia
0 comments:
Post a Comment