SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Climate Central reports
The ravages of climate change could severely hurt the ability of utilities in the 11 Western states to generate power unless they "climate proof" their power grid using renewables and energy efficiency, something they are not prepared for, according to a new study[1] [by researchers at Arizona State University, published May 18 in the journal Nature Climate Change].
[...]Higher temperatures and low stream flow reduce coal-fired power plants' ability to use water for cooling, preventing them from operating at full capacity. The most vulnerable power plants could see a reduction in power generation capacity by up to 8.8 percent, the study says.
Renewables take a hit too, but are much less vulnerable to climate change.
[...]The Arizona State study recommends Western states invest in wind, solar, and other "resilient" renewable energy sources while upgrading the power grid and encouraging conservation as ways to overcome some of the challenges climate change poses to the region's power supply.
[1] Link in TFA redirects to the URL that I included.
(Score: 4, Informative) by dak664 on Thursday May 21 2015, @06:21PM
My sarc detector is working, but here would be a good place to point out that nuclear power plants need even more water for cooling because they run about ~30% thermal efficiency as opposed to coal ~40%. Cooling towers reduce the exit steam enthalpy for a few percent efficiency increase, at the cost of "consumptive" water usage.
Coal plants can more easily survive the efficiency loss from river or pond cooling, which is typically regarded as a non-consumptive use of water, although it does increase evaporation.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 21 2015, @06:38PM
If we lined up the CA coast with nuclear reactors with cooling towers, that would not only fix the coal emissions issue, but also provide a nice continuous stream of vapor (drinkable water) where it's badly needed.
Easy, right?
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Thursday May 21 2015, @06:51PM
And excess heat could be used to evaporate (desalinate) sea water as well.
Plus, if we line them up on both sides of the San Andreas fault, we could restore "balance" and positive karma bonuses to the fault to assuage its rage.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 21 2015, @06:58PM
But the volcano gods would get jealous, so they need their own reactors up there too, lest they pull another Mt St Helens...
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:20PM
Ah yes. We are Doomed! Doomed I say!
Totally out of virgins to toss into the maw of the volcano.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 21 2015, @10:32PM
Yep, totally safe to place nuclear reactors along the fault...
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Thursday May 21 2015, @11:45PM
Whoosh...
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:28PM
I would rather see man-made floating islands(or something not right on CA land), but otherwise agree with you.
I have this unrealistic and recurring fantasy/dream that someday soon, CA will split off and sink from a combination of 'the Perfect Earthquake' and 'the Perfect Mudslide'.(while an asteroid simultaneously strikes offshore of New York City, sending a kilometer high wall of water through the city)
I'll admit to understanding why my few friends think I'm not quite right in the head.(and why I have so few friends!) :-)