UPDATE Feb 2014, http://www.empowertexans.com/economy/the-plot-to-drain-possum-kingdom-and-lake-granbury/ is the back bones to this blog…it speaks to why Prop 6 (reported manufactured drought) was needed (not) in the first place (alleged to fill Keffer’s politician’s pocket by forcing the purchase of American flanges (which Keefer sells)…the story is a must read.
So after reading the above story, my blog titile should read “if contract or water runs out, the cooling waters for the nuke plant could be an issue”.
While Propsition 6 asks for two billion more that the 6 billion already set aside for water expansion projects in Texas… this article says that Luminant is for Proposition 6…of course they are….so is the Koch brothers too….
So what about the Texas drought and our DFW nuclear risk?……http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/13/environmental-concerns-entangled-fight-over-brazos/ details the acquatic and wildlife affected by taking a back seat to water being prioritized for industrial cooling and irrigation needs. I wondered how “at risk” we are if water runs out for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant? You can’t just “shut these down”…can you? Unit 1 and 2 have operating permits clear up into 2030 and 2033. How much water will be flowing from the Brazos in just five years?
Here is some info on the relationship of the Brazos to the nuclear plant…..water is diverted from Lake Granbury into Squaw Creek Reservoir, whose “primary purpose is cooling for Comanche Peak Nuclear Generating Station. During full operation of both units of Comanche Peak, 2.2 million US gallons (8,300 m3) of water are pumped through the plant’s main condensers from Squaw Creek Reservoir.”
Last month our local media covered a story about how Lake Grandbury (supplied by the Brazos) has a low water supply due to the ongoing drought….
Which makes me ponder the question….at what point does the Brazos River cease to be able to supply Lake Grandbury who supplies Squaw Creek so that the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant stays in safe, working order?
It was bad enough that they fracked wells dangerously close to the dam near the nuclear plant, now we have fracking repercussion latent risk “and” drought risking a nuclear event near the Dallas Ft Worth populations. Here is a video on that…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf1B61WbB
When I asked how close drilling could occur to nuke plant…..
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Karen Sanchez /Railroad Commission
To: kim feil
Sent: Fri, November 2, 2012 12:56:46 PM
Subject: RE: Q on nearby old wells to new wells
There are no specific restrictions in the RRC rules.
——————————————————————–And now here is the report
“BY manmade climate denying Texans FOR manmade climate denying Texans” fyi I boldfaced for emphasis and also added my comment in (parenthesis) when it came to the manmade climate warming “debate” part …..
“…areas with dense industrial, commercial, and residential development (Figure 2.7). Lubbock, Taylor, Hood, Johnson, McLennan, Bell, Williamson, Brazos, and Fort Bend counties have major cities, and some have industries that use surface waters. In- dustrial activities in the lowest two counties, Fort Bend and Brazoria, are dominated by the petrochemical industry. Natural gas exploration is increasing basinwide and places further demand on water supplies.”
3.3.1 Periods of Record
“The Brazos BBEST gave particular attention to the Brazos River near Palo Pinto, Brazos River near Glen Rose, and Brazos River at Waco gages, which seemed to exhibit the greatest changes in flow characteristics over time.”
4.2.1 Subsistence Flows
“It is important to note that dams have fragmented many of the major reaches within the Brazos Basin, particularly the area we have defined as the middle Brazos, and this has likely been a major cause of the reduction in biotic integrity that we noted in Section 1.3.”
“Clearly, demand for water will increase in the near future. This increased demand has the potential to impact flows in support of the state’s diverse ecological systems. Our BBEST did not attempt to address changes in future supplies because of our SB3 directive as well as basin-specific water availability estimates are lacking under climate-change scenarios. The BBEST recommends that studies be performed to assess future water supplies in terms of new water conservation practices, alternative water supplies, relationships between groundwater and surface waters, desalination potential, and other methods to maintain water, both for human use and for instream and riparian needs to maintain a sound environment.”
“Wastewater reuse is becoming a popular water supply option for many communities. Treated wastewater effluent, instead of potable water, is used for a variety of non-consumptive purposes including irrigation of public and recre- ational lands, cooling tower water for power generation, and other specific industrial uses (fracking?). Reuse is classified into two forms: direct and indirect. Direct reuse is piped directly from the wastewater treatment plant to the point of use, while indirect reuse discharges treated wastewater to a stream for subsequent diversion downstream.
Increased pressure on water suppliers will result in an increased emphasis on reuse, and reuse quantities may eventu- ally approach the quality of effluent generated. The impact of reuse projects on streamflows in the study area has not been well documented.”
“The scientific community has documented a global warming trend (IPCC 2007), and there is much debate ( h e l l o “debate” negate$ $cience? ) about the relative contributions of human actions and natural processes to this pattern. If the warming trend continues, this obviously will impact the hydrological cycle in the Brazos Basin just as in other regions of the planet.”
Sea Level Rise
“…..Texas estuaries contribute billions of dollars to the state’s economy annually. Texas’ open-water bays, intertidal mudflats, and fringing marshes are being impacted by reduced freshwater inflows, pollution, increasing temperatures, saltwater intrusion, and seawater acidification.
Sea level is rising along most of the U.S. coast and around the world. It is anticipated to continue to increase during the 21st century, although the magnitude of this increase cannot be projected with precision. The world’s oceans have been absorbing most of the excess heat generated by climate change; this has led to expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, and melting portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets. All of these changes have contributed to the observed rise in sea levels.
Depending on the location of water intake structures for drinking water plants and industry and the degree to which the saltwater pushes inland, sea level rise may also have a direct impact on human use.”
Carbon-Cycling and Ocean and Estuary Acidification
“In addition to increased global temperature and increased sea levels, increased acidification of ocean and estuary waters is being observed. The world’s waters absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. The rate of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere has been on a steady rise since the industrial revolution. The world’s water is now absorbing more CO2 than ever before. When the CO2 is dissolved into the water, it creates carbonic acid and reduces the water’s pH.
An increase in the acidity of ocean and estuarine waters can have direct impacts on marine organisms by reducing the amount of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) available in the water. CaCO3 is a key structural element for many marine organisms including corals, mollusks, and shellfish. Declines in these organisms will reduce the overall productivity of marine and estuarine ecosystems.
One potential contributor to increased acidification of marine and estuarine waters may be freshwater ecosystems. While certain roles of freshwater systems in the carbon cycle are well understood, many questions remain to be an- swered.
CO2 is more soluble in freshwater than in saltwater and the degree of solubility is determined by the pH and mineral composition of the receiving water. In systems with carbonate minerals present, dissolved CO2 and CaCO3 are gener- ally in equilibrium and a change in pH will cause either the release of CO2 to the atmosphere or the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere. Additionally, in waters with cations present, CO2 will react with the cations and form insoluble carbonates, which precipitate out of the water, thus reducing dissolved CO2 levels in the water and creating a carbon sink in the sediments of lakes and rivers.
While freshwaters can be a sink for large quantities of carbon, they can also release large quantities of CO2 to the at- mosphere. Recent research suggests that freshwater may release almost as much CO2 into the atmosphere as terrestrial ecosystems (Butman and Raymond 2011). While freshwater systems clearly have a role in the natural carbon cycle, the exact nature and degree of their contribution is not well understood.”
18.104.22.168 (chart I paraphrased)
Climate Change-Water Availability Research project has BBEST recommended priority to be in fifth place (which is last). The responsible agencies = USGS, TPWD, TCEQ, TWDB with start date of 2017 and end date of 2020 depending on funding and staff availability (none of the recommended projects have funding-FYI).
In closing, I’d like to point out that the chair on this above report was Tom Gooch, PE from Freese and Nichols, who previously reported on water use for energy purposes on a 2009 report called …
“Texas Water Plan as it Affects North Texas and Water for Energy in North Texas” One of the statements on the report was..
“Two major uses for energy sector in North Texas
• Cooling for power plants (like Lake Arlington, our drinking water source, is for the Exelon Power plant and like Squaw Creek is for the Luminant Nuclear Power Plant)
• Natural gas drilling in Barnett Shale”
UPDATE>>>>In researching senate and house bills related to Brazos water flow rights (HB 3 & SB3) for this blog about the Brazos River flows/nuclear risk, I found this March 2012, MANMADE CLIMATE DENYING document on the TCEQ website called …
After my blog, below is the report where I boldfaced certain “interesting” statements on this report and made my comments in (parenthesis) but I’ll cut to the chase…. they made one unfortunate unscientific remark… “there is much debate about the relative contributions of human actions and natural processes to this (Climate Change) pattern.”
There is also a chart at the end of this 300+ page? report that recommends future studies and put the Water Availability Research Project relating to Climate Change in….wait for it ……last place….luv Texas huh