--- Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > ...which seems a waste to me. Why not use the "waste" heat for desalination? It has fresh water as a "free" byproduct of the cooling process.
This is being done in a few areas, but it is far from "free": http://www.livemint.com/2007/07/01150752/Israels-desalination-tech-hel.html But in general, it is the old Catch-22 ... total mismatch of supply and demand. If the nuclear plant is near the ocean, then it can optimally use direct ocean cooling, and thereby dispense with the expensive cooling tower. If fresh water is needed, then a desalinization plant can be sited next-door to the reactor, which can then use the waste heat first to distill salt water. But distillation can be done with waste heat from coal or methane power plants more easily, since they are efficient in smaller capacity, allowing one dual-use plant, and there is less risk of cross-contamination. This type if gas-fired dual purpose plant is found in Baja, California. However, the leftover concentrated salt water is usually injected back into the ocean, and its toxicity can cause the local salinity to rise, which can create problems for ocean life. Removing all the salt from concentrate doubles the cost of the fresh water. It is a lose-lose situation without large salt evaporation ponds to keep the concentrate from having to be reinjected into the ocean. But most problematic, the countries having lots of nuclear capacity: USA, France, UK, Russia -- also have lots of fresh water. The parts of Africa and Asia which need the freshwater are often too impoverished to afford the nuclear plant, and in the article above, it appears that the Israeli's are cornering that market. The "dry and wealthy" countries which could really benefit hugely without Israel's help are in the Middle East, and are wealthy because of oil - but even so, are considering nuclear plants for desalinization (plus possibly bomb material, according to the CIA). Fresh water has been a stated goal of Iran's nuclear plans. Jones
