Water vapor and nuclear energy greenhouse effect

[FPLM]

Hello everybody
I've been around this site for a long time and I feel myself.
I stop feeling so long in the future. I found more info here than on expert sites that, by the way, lose all their credit as soon as you shake up established ideas.
In short, I turned to them to ask them what is the impact of the discharge of water vapor from nuclear power plants on the climate, ...
I'll pass you the details but if you are interested here is this thread:
http://forums.futura-sciences.com/environnement-developpement-durable-ecologie/329-energie-nucleaire-12.html#post2820738
What I learned from this is that a power station emits + - 3m3 of water vapor per second (per chimney). There are nearly 450 of these devices in operation worldwide.
So, assuming an operation of 12 hours per day, I have an annual worldwide release of 20 m995 of steam solely for nuclear production, i.e. <200% of global electricity production (not counting than a fireplace).
Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than co2 because its IR absorption line is wider. There is therefore no point in comparing what is not comparable.
However, the futura-machin experts almost laugh at my candor because these volumes are insignificant compared to what the ocean gives off in vapor. Yes, but the ocean regulation process is slow compared to the rhythm of the power stations and over the length, it will also become a problem because the difference in rate / time is large. And on that, no answer. Apart from peanuts.
In fact, if I follow their reasoning, as long as our emissions are lower than those of Mother Nature, it's cool. But of course, let's ignore that and build on it.
It's hard to admit, but the scientific elite still can't understand the most basic of calculations: addition.
To say that it is peanuts is still to put one's head in the sand.
I easily believe the argument which consists in saying that replacing all the fossil fuel power stations is a titanic project. And it is precisely because this problem has been ignored for more than 50 years that this replacement seems impossible to do on time.
I have never seen a cyclist in last position the whole race finish in the first!
So, I still do not have an answer to my question, in view of these considerations (rate, calorific quality of water, time scale, ...), which can tell me what the impact of discharges from steam on the climate over a century for example?
Support his analysis with figures because the next one who answers me just peanuts, I ...
However, given the lack of information on the subject, any clarification will be welcome.

PS: for the reckless who would have read the thread until the end, I don't have any problem that you tell me you immediately. But I hate contempt and haughty pedantry.

[Rabbit]

PS: for the reckless who would have read the thread until the end, I don't have any problem that you tell me you immediately.

Avoid all the same, Monsieur appreciates only very moderately
familiarities.
Ref Message # 212 from this discussion

PS: we do not know each other and I would ask you to please do not tu, it is not very polite.
Goods.

[Ptilu]

Hello
I would be quite familiar, ns sum between person capable of knowing how to live;)
The big difference is the time spent in the atmosphere and re-absorbing.

For CO2, about half of the carbon stock stored as a hydrocarbon has been released in 150 years. It had taken about 100 million years to form ... I do not have the figures in front of me, and I do not know what is the share of the total carbon which was suddenly found in the atmosphere (we are instantaneous compared to the geological time scale)
We still understand the problem ...
For water vapor it is completely different, because the cycle is very short (a few days for the water cycle) and the quantity released is largely negligible. Your addition is not an addition to the absorption time reguard.
For the water released by the combustion of fossil fuels I don't know.

[FPLM]

Hello Rabbit!
I'm not an old embittered reactionary, I reassure you. I only had one onion to peel with some on a futura-thing.
I was just showing that paying for my apple with evasive answers and above all, especially the contemptuous tone used, does not promote good understanding. When I am provoked, my teeth grow, especially the canines. But between people of good faith, I am rather of good company, it seems. I'll let you decide.

Hi you ptilu.
I admit that the water cycle is short but nevertheless it is slower than that of thermal power plants.
I also admit that the quantities of vapor created by them are minimal in the current state of things. But already less when we consider all types of production rejecting steam, that is to say the vast majority of electrical production in particular.

Our main problem, with regard to global warming, is the excess co2, it has been widely accepted for a long time.
If one of the problematic aspects is the difference between the quantity emitted per unit of time compared to the natural regulation capacity over the same unit of time, and if we replace our “old model” thermal power plants with increasingly large nuclear power plants (by then, demography will probably have increased as well), the same problem can arise with water vapor. That is to say the cycle saturation and the risk of runaway that this saturation could bring.
The fact that the water cycle is shorter only gives a probable advantage in the event of excess, it will be regulated more quickly and, this remains to be proven, with less consequences (no acidification of the water , ...). Even if this is only purely speculative, I am willing to hear it if studies, estimates or serious experiments tend to prove it. This is not the case. However, basing our decisions in terms of environmentally friendly energy on "it's peanuts" is what has led us to the dead end in which we are with co2.
So yes, I admit less that I am told that it is ridiculous without proving it to me.
And finally, I also admit that it annoys in all cases, that this hypothesis is seen as a stone in the pond or as a pebble in the shoe. But in the same way that I am told without showing it to me that it is "peanuts", I say that it is ridiculous to procrastinate on the subject without a long-term study of this possibility.
I do not need figures to fear that we fall back into our faults, I already have enough arguments against nuclear power to be sure that this is the case. I would only like to be able to affirm or deny with something else that "it is peanuts" that we pretend to take the necessary precautions and that we bequeath to future generations the poison of our greed.
And, to answer you, my addition is one:
Let us say that the earth, according to the contribution of the sun, regulates x tonnes over n days. The power plants, and here you have to include all types of thermal power plants, they add y tonnes per day. We do have an excess of y * n tonnes more to regulate per cycle. We therefore influence the regulation capacity of this cycle even if it is minimal compared to the amount of water on the blue planet. To rely on these presumptions is to run the risk of being caught in the throat sooner or later.
I ask the question differently, or and when is the saturation rate of water vapor in the natural cycle?
The effects may not be felt due to deforestation. Indeed, the power stations sweat, that compensates.
But what about tomorrow? What if we replant trees (which will have to be done) and that we quickly build thermal power plants (which are done) based on this principle at the same time?
The wisdom and the precaution would like that the uncontrolled emissions of water vapor be studied also and if it is already done why not to inform people of it since there is chances that it is harmless. It's "peanuts" is not really scientific information that allows you to reasonably ignore it, I'm sorry.
Otherwise, in all cases, and in view of the findings on the impact of excess co2, it is frightening not to know where we are going.
I'm not even talking about the deprivation of water or the horrible idea that it is the subject of economic and political issues even more devastating than today.
When the first coal-fired power stations were built, my words, deferred to co2, would certainly have given the same kind of answer: "cool man, that's not what will change the face of the world". Probably because no one could envision our situation today as no one cared about the long-term effects of a strong expansion in this direction.
In the current state of things, we are talking about doing without 500 power stations, it is heavy but doable. On the other hand 500000 is another pair of sleeves, not counting the increase in the probability of an accident, the cost of maintenance, ...

Does this point of view still seem futile to you?
So paved in the pond or pebble in the shoe?

[EDIT] I forgot, you tell me that the problem presents itself differently than with co2, I totally agree but that does not exclude that they give the same result. The only way to find out is to study the question.


PS: sorry for the sandwich. Difficult not to sprawl on such a debate, politicians have continued to spread over it elsewhere.

[Christophe]

There are a lot of what I call "cultured idiots" (a guy who knows a lot of things but with a very mediocre open-mindedness like "Me I Know" you don't and don't talk to me please) on futura science ... I've been hanging around there for a while ... plus with their crappy popups ... no thanks ...

Here is my opinion on the matter and I think it is not far from reality.

A) Nuclear power plants have a clear impact on the regional climate ... I would say within a radius of 10 to 20 km around the power plant ... which is already 1250 km² ... it's not nothing.

For example, it often snows more "near" power stations than elsewhere. There is also often more haze.

Not far from here we have a wood-steam cogeneration of 6MWe, well there is often a pocket of mist not far away.

B) But on a global scale it is peanuts from peanuts all the more so because, unlike the infinitely greater water vapor from petroleum, there is no chemical transformation (just a phase change) in the water vapor of nuclear power plants.

Water vapor from petroleum represents a large quantity in absolute terms, but in comparison with the evaporation capacity of the oceans, this is nothing at all on a world scale (of the order of a millionth to be verified).

Now that doesn’t mean she’s innocent because by burning hydrocarbons: we increase the amount of water in the earth cycle .... which is not the case for nuclear power plants.

Read: https://www.econologie.com/forums/centrale-n ... t8511.html

ps: if someone finds me the amount of water evaporated by the oceans each day, I would calculate the% that represents the vapor emissions from petroleum (or even + gas if you insist) ...

[bpval]

Well yes, answer on A)

And not only with proximity
- rivers
- rivers
- swamps
- pond

promotes this melancholy mist of our children's games ...
Jack the Ripper knew a part of it

[Ptilu]

Christophe rightly

When an air-cooling tower spits its plume, it only borrows a source of atmospheric water which would have taken place in the natural cycle anyway. I say nothing about the local impact which seems inevitable ...

For the natural flow, there, it's super balèze as a calculation ...

[Christophe]

So I found this:

Daily, approximately 1 km200 of water evaporates from the oceans, surfaces of continents, plants, glaciers and ice caps; almost the same amount falls back as precipitation. If evaporation did not compensate for the water lost by precipitation, the atmosphere would become completely dry in 10 days.

On this page: http://users.belgacom.net/renedec/pagesci1.html

Cow I knew there were several hundred km3 but I didn't think it was over a thousand ...

Well, we will assume this value is correct (as much as the one you are calculating), what is good is that it includes all "natural evaporators" and not just the oceans.

We quickly see that the 20 m995 per year calculated above represent very little! Indeed, 200 billion m000 per year is 3 million m21 per day.

Or 1 km3 = 1000m * 1000m * 1000m = 1 m000 = 000 billion m000. We therefore have 3 billion m1 on one side and 3 million on the other.

Simplifying by "1 million", the ratio between natural evaporation and the contribution of nuclear power plants is therefore 57 / 1200 ... or 000%! This means that even if there were tomorrow 0.00475 times more nuclear reactors in the world, which will never happen (because humanity will probably never need as much electrical energy), we do not not exceed 100%!

So yes and sorry but it is indeed PEANUTS ... And they did not find that on Futura science with their "absolute knowledge"?

Lower down in this subject (I'm lazy there), we will calculate that of petroleum by assimilating it to an average alkane (otherwise I don't know how to do it!) And taking a daily consumption of 90M barrels.

I don't think it exceeds 1% ... but there, as said above, it's a little different because "we transform O2 and H2" into H2O ... we therefore increase the mass of water on Earth. Not sure that it will be so insignificant in the long term for the climate we know.

At the planetary level, except water supply by comets, the quantity of water is constant so when we have burnt all the oil and gas, we will have as much water in the water cycle as before the era hydrocarbon formation ...

ps: by the way, pkoi you only take 12 hours a day? Because the average load factor of a reactor over the year is 80% ....

[Rabbit]

... on futura science ... it's been a while since I've been hanging around ... more with their shitty popups ... no thanks ...

Go with Firefox stuffed with Adblock plus and Flashblock, you will see that
relieves eyes and makes reading easier on most sites
including futura .Y has a plugin that even removes messages from
pubs. But I don't know which one anymore ...

[FPLM]

Hello everyone,
Thank you all.
Now thanks to you I know what to put behind "peanuts".
They are really clowns on futura-circus!
To be honest, we wanted to test this argument in our line of attack against nuclear power. Thanks to Christophe, rabbit and ptilu and the others we will not pass for nazes because I can prove to my colleagues that this argument does not hold water.
At the same time, I will sleep better too but always with one eye as long as nuclear power is around.
I had left on the oceans only and suddenly, I had even underestimated the volume. It's huge indeed.
Christophe, can I copy your demonstration for our meeting? I will quote your source and its author as well as you for the calculation of course.
To answer you, 12 noon because I understood that they produce mostly during the day and almost not at night, but that may be wrong.
At 80%, it's more like 20 p.m.
You seem to know a lot more about nuclear than I do. If you have links or contacts, I am interested.
If you also have figures for the fossil, I'm interested too.
Our initiative has just been born and we have little data, however grievances, full.
But why, I lost 1 week talking to deaf people myself?
I admit that I got a little carried away and pulled in the heap. But they have a knack for pushing you to the limit on fs. I've been chatting for a week on "peanuts", "not peanuts" while I asked them for numbers, period. I felt like I had chosen the right place, naive that I am. In short, I requested the termination of my account in the meantime. I feel much better here.
Cool anyway. Hope to read you again because I have other questions and other pending issues.
Well, since I hold the record for "peanuts", so I'm going to slap myself.
See you later and thank you again.