Part 1 of 2 Parts
       Nuclear power is often promoted as part of the solution to climate change. Claims that nuclear power is carbon free are technically correct in a narrow sense. While during actual operation of the reactors, carbon dioxide is not generated, the construction and fueling of nuclear power plants does emit a great deal of carbon dioxide. Over their lifespans, nuclear power plants generate more carbon dioxide than wind farms and solar installation. They do generate less carbon dioxide over their lifespans than fossil fuel power plants. While nuclear power plants may emit less carbon dioxide than fossil fuel power plants, they are vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
       Nuclear power plants are always located near bodies of water because they require huge amounts of water for cooling the reactors. It turns out that more frequent heat waves and higher average temperatures are raising the temperatures of some bodies of water to the point that they cannot adequately cool the nuclear power plants that depend on them.
       In publicly available reports, nuclear power plant operators admitted that extreme temperatures last year forced operators to reduce nuclear power plants electrical output over thirty times. As might be expected, this occurred more often in the summer. In 2012, such reductions happened more than sixty times. One plant in Connecticut had to be shut down for over two weeks when the temperature in Long Island Sound rose over seventy-five degrees.
      These reported incidents have risen over the last couple of decades. In 2009, only nine of these incidents were filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In 1988, 1989 and 1991 there was only one such episode each year. This steady increase in cooling water temperatures follows the steady increase in global temperatures caused by climate change.
      David Lochbaum is a retired nuclear engineer and former director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union for Concerned Scientists. He compiled reports based on data submitted to the NRC. He said, “I’ve heard many nuclear proponents say that nuclear power is part of the solution to global warming. It needs to be reversed: You need to solve global warming for nuclear plants to survive.”
     NRC has regulations that set strict temperature limits for the cooling water that can be used for cooling a nuclear power reactor. Some of these limits include 75 degrees for the Millstone Generating Station in Connecticut, 85 degrees for the Braidwood Generating Station outside Chicago, as high as 90 degrees for the Turkey Point Generating Station south of Miami. U.S. nuclear power plants are more often hitting these ceilings and even exceeding them.
        Even in cases where the temperature of cooling water just approaches the limit, a nuclear power plant may have to reduce its output if the water they used for cooling will raise the temperature in nearby waterways to the point where fish and plants are threatened. The Limerick Generating Station outside Philadelphia, for example, reported that it had to reduce its output 79 times between 2008 and 2016 because of water temperature issues.
Please read Part 2

Ambient office  =  99 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Carrot from Central Market = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 175 nanosieverts per hour

Filtered water = 162 nanosieverts per hour

        I compiled a list of problems with nuclear energy and posted it on this blog. There are many reasons that nuclear fission is not the answer to our energy needs or to climate change mitigation. One reason I keep coming back to is that nuclear fission is just too expensive and it will ultimately price itself out of the market.
       The nuclear industry is in serious trouble in the U.S. More reactors are being retired than are being built. There is a trend toward state and federal subsidies to keep our nuclear power plants operating in the face of stiff competition from cheap oil and natural gas as well as wind and solar renewable sources.
       Constructing a new nuclear power plant is very expensive and operating costs are high. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) says “capital costs include site preparation, engineering, manufacturing, construction, commissioning, and financing. Operating costs include fuel costs (from uranium mining to fuel fabrication), maintenance, decommissioning, and waste disposal.” The cost of a nuclear power plant is considerably higher than that of a fossil fuel plant and the cost of wind and solar installations is dropping rapidly. The very high cost of a nuclear power plant makes nuclear power uncompetitive in the U.S. energy market. The flood of cheap natural gas has basically priced nuclear power out of the market.
       For those who support the use of nuclear power as a low carbon energy source of base load power, the challenge is to find a way to make it more affordable. The BAS suggests that standardized designs and small modular reactors can help to lower costs.
       Up to this point in time there has not been a standardized design for new nuclear power plants in the U.S. New technological developments and varied environmental conditions have caused designs to change with time. If a way could be found to standardized designs, it would substantially lower construction costs not just in the U.S. but in the global energy market. This may be the “most effective way to reduce the total price of nuclear energy.”
      Small modular reactors are nuclear reactors that generate three hundred megawatts or less of electricity. Many analysts believe that the development of standardized small reactors that can be built offsite in a factory and then assembled onsite could be a decisive way to lower construction costs. The BAS says “Because of their small size and relative design simplicity, it is feasible to build modules primarily in a factory setting and then transport the completed modules to the plant site for installation. This would significantly improve construction efficiency and reduce capital costs. These simplified reactors are also expected to have lower operating and maintenance costs. Due to the higher surface-to-volume ratio for these reactors compared with traditional reactors, many safety provisions for heat removal are unnecessary.”
       If nuclear power has any hope of being competitive in the U.S. in the future, the nuclear industry will have to start implementing strategies such as standardization and modularity immediately.

Ambient office  =  126 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Beefsteak tomato from Central Market = 94 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Filtered water = 66 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office  =  119 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 86 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 86 nanosieverts per hour

Blueberry from Central Market = 138 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 48 nanosieverts per hour

Filtered water = 40 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office  =  74 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 66 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 112 nanosieverts per hour

Filtered water = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Dover sole – Caught in USA = 115 nanosieverts per hour