View Single Post
Old 06-22-2009, 03:08 AM   #42
HarryT
eBook Enthusiast
HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
HarryT's Avatar
 
Posts: 85,557
Karma: 93980341
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffC View Post
I wonder whether nuclear is non-polluting in terms of greenhouse gases. Doesn't the reactor need water for cooling purposes. If so then that includes steam venting into the atmosphere.
The most commonly-used reactor design today is the PWR (pressurised water reactor). In that design, the actual coolant that flows through the reactor itself is a sealed system - no venting. Those coolant pipes are in turn cooled by an "outer" coolant system via a heat exchanger, but that is "flowing" water, either from the sea or a river. It's just pumped from the river, passes through the heat exchangers, and discharged back into the river again, a few degrees warmer than when it went in. There's no "steam" involved, and no greenhouse gases.

Local marine life generally flourishes around nuclear power stations; the fact that they warm the water is nice for the fish.
HarryT is offline   Reply With Quote