We All Live Downstream

Energy Series, Part III: Nuclear Energy: Not in My Watershed

The nationwide debate surrounding nuclear energy frequently considers nuclear safety and waste disposal, but largely ignores the issue of depleting water supplies. But water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles heel. Nuclear plants use water for power generation and to maintain safe operating temperatures. Without a steady supply of water, these plants would simply not work.

Nuclear power plants produce an awful lot of heat. To combat this dangerous excess heat, nuclear plants pull billions of gallons of water from nearby lakes, rivers, streams and estuaries, every day. For example, the Pennsylvania-based Susquehanna nuclear power plant requires approximately 33 million gallons of water each day to maintain full power production, and the Salem Nuclear Generating Station removes an incredible 3 billion gallons of water from the Delaware Bay every day. Yes, that’s right THREE BILLION GALLONS per day.

Of the United States’ 104 active nuclear reactors, 24 are sited in regions experiencing severe drought. As water levels drop due to climate change, drought or increased competing demand, these nuclear reactors may not be able to harvest sufficient quantities of cooling water. Already, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to temporarily shut down an Alabama-based nuclear plant due to water restrictions during summer 2007. Such events could become much more common in coming years if, as many believe, climate change continues to increase drought frequency and severity. This introduces an element of uncertainty for nuclear power plants of which the public, for the most part, has not been made aware.

But what about those nuclear plants still operating at or near full capacity? You’d think anything that sucks up billions of gallons of water every day would have an impact on the environment. Industry advocates would have you believe otherwise, but they’d be wrong. The Salem Nuclear Generating Station’s intake structures, for example, kill approximately 900 million fish every year, and untold numbers of fish eggs, crustaceans, shellfish and more.

Nuclear advocates would also like you to believe their water use is harmless because most of it is returned to the environment as discharge water. Well, this would be fine if the plants were simply scooping up water in a bucket, and dumping it back again. But it’s a little more complex than that. Remember, this water was used to cool a nuclear power plant. By the time it is returned to the environment, it’s been robbed of all life, heated far beyond natural levels, and likely contaminated with ionizing radiation, heavy metals and chemical pollution. No impact? Hardly.

Then, there’s everyone’s favorite demon — radioactive nuclear waste. No one really knows how to deal with this. The stuff is so dangerous it requires a warning system that people could understand 10,000 years from now, no small challenge. Even clearly labeled, we can’t be entirely sure nuclear waste will stay where we put it. Many believe nuclear waste could seep into nearby water sources, and no one can be sure future earthquakes or volcanic eruptions won’t crack through planned protections. This is one case where ignorance is not bliss.

So, the next time someone scoffs at nuclear safety risks, ask them about water. If nuclear power plants are already being forced to temporarily shutdown due to water shortages, how will they handle the increasingly severe droughts scientists predict will accompany climate change? How do they think we should deal with heavy metal pollution in our drinking water supplies? And, would they be willing to drink from a well downstream of Yucca Mountain? Only if their ardor for nuclear energy outstrips their sense of self preservation.

Related Posts:

Energy Series, Part I: We Can’t Solve Today’s Problems With Yesterday’s Ideas

Energy Series, Part II: The Dirty Truth About “Clean” Coal

Energy Series, Part IV: Ethanol: Too Good To Be True?

Energy Series, Part V: Curing Our Fossil Fuel Addiction, One Alternative At A Time

Energy Series, Part VI: Have More Energy By Using Less Of It

Posted on September 30, 2008  | Filed Under Global Warming and a New Energy Economy | 1 Comment

Related posts

• Energy Series, Part IV: Ethanol: Too Good to be True?
• Energy Series, Part II: The Dirty Truth About “Clean” Coal
• Energy Series, Part V: Curing our Fossil Fuel Addiction, One Alternative at a Time
• Energy Series, Part I: We Can’t Solve Today’s Problems with Yesterday’s Ideas
• Reprocessing Nuclear Waste – How to Make a Bad Situation Worse

Comments