Still the Mother Nature seems telling me it is indeed spring. …
Basil seeds sown 10 days ago
Join the Conversation
It's getting warmer here. But I'm waiting for the september cold snap that usually takes everyone by surprise! :left:.Wish we could get a little rain. After three years of wet winters (in a normally summer rainfall area) this years drought is unbearable! :awww:.
Yes, spring never comes in straight fashion, doesn't she? September for us in Wellington region often brings nor'wester gale, followed by cold snaps in October. Our winter is normally wet, but we seem to have fewer cold crispy frosty mornings and a lot more soggy wet days this year. :(How is your winter drought affecting your life? Do your industries suffer, as it would in NZ (being an agricultural country)?
The drought has brought an increase of wild fires! So far, water supplies seem adaquate unlike previous droughts that brought in water restrictions! (fines for using too much water)Naturally, the farming community suffers the most!
Fire risks in winter seems doubly dangerous as people would be lighting fire to get warm, wouldn't they? To us summer is normally the danger season. But when I used to live in Tokyo, where dry period comes in winter, we were often warned of fire risks with a quite catchy jingle telling you, 'A single match causes big fire!'.
The drought has brought an increase of wild fires! So far, water supplies seem adaquate unlike previous droughts that brought in water restrictions! (fines for using too much water)Naturally, the farming community suffers the most! :awww:.
By the way, what kind of plants are they ? Drought doesnt affect us really ( apart from avoiding water waste). They just avoid culture as corn … yes I forgot, nuclear plants are dependant of rivers. "Normally" they take less water, to avoid rivers not to exceed a temperature level, and so normally there is less available electricity.
Severe drought would affect all sort of farming, crop or livestock. Most impacted would be the pasture grass production for livestock farmers. (Flooding could do similar damage by burying grass under layer of mud and silt) Also impacted would the market gardeners growing vegetable crops, which directly affect out meal table. The orchardists and wine grape growsers would be less affected, I should imagine. (DH might know better than me in this department. His area is renowned for stone fruites and wineries)Originally posted by arduinna:
nuclear plants are dependant of rivers.
:eyes: Very scary thought. So you could have a melt down in hand if the water intake were compromised, couldn't you? And where do the nuke plants discharge the used colling water? Not back to the rivers the water was taken from, I hope.
Ah, yes, he did. (Missed that point.) So it means there'll be even less nuke power generation when in drought and river water is even less available.Wonder why the French didn't build their nuke power plants by the sea.
:confused: I thought Olivier asked what kind of plants are affected by droughts! Maybe not.Yes, that's sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum, the seed packet tells me)
The water goes back to where it came from, in the uk they test mussels for radioactivity as they pick up very fine particles and like the warmer output flow from the reactor, many uk reactors are coastal so cool with sea water
Wonder why the French didn't build their nuke power plants by the sea
Probably because the maintenance is less expensive due to oxydization ? But we have some using sea-water such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penly_Nuclear_Power_Plant Just looking the following map, you will see that electricity transportation (and its losses and cost) is a different problem in UK and in France.
Uk is surrounded by sea, its never far away, same as here, so no shortage of cooling water.There are issues 'transporting' electricity over long distances (losses become unacceptable) so if you have a large land mass like France you have to put the power where needed, I would guess that this is the main reason for placing the plants inland 🙂
Probably because the maintenance is less expensive due to oxydization ? … you will see that electricity transportation (and its losses and cost) is a different problem in UK and in France.
And a different approach to calculating risks of not being near plentiful cooling water supply (possible over heating or even meltdown)? What about the inferior cost efficacy of building the plants that cannot be used at full capacity whenever the river water level goes out of the range?[disclaimer]In principle, I'm staunchly anti-nuke.[/disclaimer] But even hypothetically seeing the matter from pro-nuke point of view, putting cost-cutting ahead of risk management and efficient operation of the plants seems less prudent than the UK approach to me.
In South Africa, we rely mostly on coal burning power stations. Most of our power stations are in one area. Transporting electricity is cheaper than transporting coal. :left:.
I'm still not convinced. What good is there with those riverside nuke plants if you can't use them because of low river water level? And wouldn't that be more likely to happen during the summer months with high electricity demands for air conditioning?
You still use them just reduce the output. Aircon is still a bit of a luxury in most of europe, and hardly ever required in the uk. The real demand is in winter
Aircon is still a bit of a luxury in most of europe, and hardly ever required in the uk.
Hmmm. I didn't know that. Having heard about the elderly dying in summer heat waves in Europe last couple of years, I'm a bit surprised there's still not much power demand for air conditioning in Europe. But that (mis)conception is probably because I come from Japan, where the power demand peaks in summer for air conditioning. At least it was like that 20 years ago. The natural gas used to be the choice of winter heating power source. But now with the heat pumps having become so efficient, there may be more power demand in winter.Originally posted by qlue:
Transporting electricity is cheaper than transporting coal.
And a better way to control the pollution from burning coal? (I'm not talking about the CO2 emission here, being what people call the global warming skeptic. A bit rare species for a greenie, eh? :p)
What about the inferior cost efficacy of building the plants that cannot be used at full capacity whenever the river water level goes out of the range?
There is no classical economical basis here. They are managed by a public administration, so they were paid by taxes. Besides, the dismantling of these plants is not presently taken in the price of the kWh we pay. Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:
I'm a bit surprised there's still not much power demand for air conditioning in Europe
Many of the houses are old with thick walls and France is not so warm as Spain …. Another point is that Summer is less active, the day are longer (less artificial light) and so we import mainly what we need from Germany and Italy and in winter we export to them (a very straight summary).
Basil seeds sown 10 days ago
It's getting warmer here. But I'm waiting for the september cold snap that usually takes everyone by surprise! :left:.Wish we could get a little rain. After three years of wet winters (in a normally summer rainfall area) this years drought is unbearable! :awww:.
Yes, spring never comes in straight fashion, doesn't she? September for us in Wellington region often brings nor'wester gale, followed by cold snaps in October. Our winter is normally wet, but we seem to have fewer cold crispy frosty mornings and a lot more soggy wet days this year. :(How is your winter drought affecting your life? Do your industries suffer, as it would in NZ (being an agricultural country)?
Originally posted by qlue:
Fire risks in winter seems doubly dangerous as people would be lighting fire to get warm, wouldn't they? To us summer is normally the danger season. But when I used to live in Tokyo, where dry period comes in winter, we were often warned of fire risks with a quite catchy jingle telling you, 'A single match causes big fire!'.
The drought has brought an increase of wild fires! So far, water supplies seem adaquate unlike previous droughts that brought in water restrictions! (fines for using too much water)Naturally, the farming community suffers the most! :awww:.
:lol:I've just realised my very first blog post is actually quite a bit shorter than this. Beware of the misleading title :p
! (my the shortest comment ever ) :devil:
By the way, what kind of plants are they ? Drought doesnt affect us really ( apart from avoiding water waste). They just avoid culture as corn … yes I forgot, nuclear plants are dependant of rivers. "Normally" they take less water, to avoid rivers not to exceed a temperature level, and so normally there is less available electricity.
Severe drought would affect all sort of farming, crop or livestock. Most impacted would be the pasture grass production for livestock farmers. (Flooding could do similar damage by burying grass under layer of mud and silt) Also impacted would the market gardeners growing vegetable crops, which directly affect out meal table. The orchardists and wine grape growsers would be less affected, I should imagine. (DH might know better than me in this department. His area is renowned for stone fruites and wineries)Originally posted by arduinna:
:eyes: Very scary thought. So you could have a melt down in hand if the water intake were compromised, couldn't you? And where do the nuke plants discharge the used colling water? Not back to the rivers the water was taken from, I hope.
Basil by the looks of it, i will miss the rain when its gone… not even slightly
Ah, yes, he did. (Missed that point.) So it means there'll be even less nuke power generation when in drought and river water is even less available.Wonder why the French didn't build their nuke power plants by the sea.
:confused: I thought Olivier asked what kind of plants are affected by droughts! Maybe not.Yes, that's sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum, the seed packet tells me)
First properly fine day in over a week! Time for washing. TTFN
Radioactivity may be minimal. But what about water temperature? Surely that would impact the river's ecosystem.
Indeed, as Arduinna is saying they moderate the return flow at the cost of power production
The water goes back to where it came from, in the uk they test mussels for radioactivity as they pick up very fine particles and like the warmer output flow from the reactor, many uk reactors are coastal so cool with sea water
Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:
Probably because the maintenance is less expensive due to oxydization ? But we have some using sea-water such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penly_Nuclear_Power_Plant Just looking the following map, you will see that electricity transportation (and its losses and cost) is a different problem in UK and in France.
Uk is surrounded by sea, its never far away, same as here, so no shortage of cooling water.There are issues 'transporting' electricity over long distances (losses become unacceptable) so if you have a large land mass like France you have to put the power where needed, I would guess that this is the main reason for placing the plants inland 🙂
Originally posted by arduinna:
And a different approach to calculating risks of not being near plentiful cooling water supply (possible over heating or even meltdown)? What about the inferior cost efficacy of building the plants that cannot be used at full capacity whenever the river water level goes out of the range?[disclaimer]In principle, I'm staunchly anti-nuke.[/disclaimer] But even hypothetically seeing the matter from pro-nuke point of view, putting cost-cutting ahead of risk management and efficient operation of the plants seems less prudent than the UK approach to me.
In South Africa, we rely mostly on coal burning power stations. Most of our power stations are in one area. Transporting electricity is cheaper than transporting coal. :left:.
Depends on how close the mine is 😆
I'm still not convinced. What good is there with those riverside nuke plants if you can't use them because of low river water level? And wouldn't that be more likely to happen during the summer months with high electricity demands for air conditioning?
You still use them just reduce the output. Aircon is still a bit of a luxury in most of europe, and hardly ever required in the uk. The real demand is in winter
Originally posted by darkesthour:
Hmmm. I didn't know that. Having heard about the elderly dying in summer heat waves in Europe last couple of years, I'm a bit surprised there's still not much power demand for air conditioning in Europe. But that (mis)conception is probably because I come from Japan, where the power demand peaks in summer for air conditioning. At least it was like that 20 years ago. The natural gas used to be the choice of winter heating power source. But now with the heat pumps having become so efficient, there may be more power demand in winter.Originally posted by qlue:
And a better way to control the pollution from burning coal? (I'm not talking about the CO2 emission here, being what people call the global warming skeptic. A bit rare species for a greenie, eh? :p)
Australia has a higher demand in summer due to air con, new zealand is the other way round i understand
Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:
There is no classical economical basis here. They are managed by a public administration, so they were paid by taxes. Besides, the dismantling of these plants is not presently taken in the price of the kWh we pay. Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:
Many of the houses are old with thick walls and France is not so warm as Spain …. Another point is that Summer is less active, the day are longer (less artificial light) and so we import mainly what we need from Germany and Italy and in winter we export to them (a very straight summary).
Originally posted by arduinna:
No wonder I couldn't understand it. 😛
Byzantium rules 😆