European Heatwave Grows - 47C In London's Underground Stations - AFP

[hatrack]

Much of western Europe sweltered under tropical temperatures Wednesday, as a heatwave claimed its seventh victim since the start of the week.

Authorities in the eastern French town of Macon said a 53 year-old road-labourer died overnight of "malign hyperthermia" after working outside in temperatures of 33 degrees Centigrade (91.4 Fahrenheit). Two elderly people died Tuesday in southwestern France as a result of the heat, and in the Netherlands two people died on the opening day of an annual walking event at Nijmegen. In Spain a man who died of heat exhaustion in the northwest region of Galicia was the second to succumb after a man died in Murcia in the southeast on Sunday.

Forecasters in Britain said temperatures would peak Wednesday, reaching 39 degrees Centigrade in parts of the southeast. Belgium, Germany and Scandinavian countries were also experiencing unusually hot weather. Local authorities in Britain poured gravel on roads to counter the effects of melting asphalt, and some schools and offices were closed. Lions at a zoo in Colchester were given ice cubes containing blood.

EDIT

The London underground system, the oldest in the world, was a furnace on Tuesday with a record temperature of 47 C. Bus passengers fared even worse, with temperatures on buses in the City of London, the main financial district, reaching 52 C.

EDIT/END

http://www.terradaily.com/2006/060719115227.e1ai5k6a.html

[Warpy]

1. 126.6 on a BUS?

Oh, gawd. I just can't imagine. I've been stuck on a train in a subway tunnel during a power outage and the temperature was probably in the high 90s and people started to go a little nutso. I can't imagine it 30 degrees higher.

I shudder to think of what their death toll is going to be.

[Greeby]

2. Tell me about it

I haven't got dressed at all today, it's been so hot. But then I have no job so I can get away with it

[NNadir]

3. I wonder how many German deaths it will take to start counting the coal

carbon dioxide?

[Kellanved]

4. It is counted

You seem to be mixing something up, like the emission trading.

As Germany's CO2 emissions are a) falling and b) not even nearly the worst, I don't get your focus.

[NNadir]

5. I am mocking Germany's nuclear phase out.

I have also been mocking that Germany has announced that CO₂ from coal doesn't count.

I am mocking Germany's decision to built new coal capacity while announcing the grand renewable oriented nuclear phase out.

And I am noting that while Germany is announcing the grand renewable future (a marketing ploy) it is in reality committing (out of sight, out of mind) to more coal.

I submit that the grand woop-de-doo lah-lah land decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from 2003 to 2004, 0.48 million metric tons out of a total of 862.23 million metric tons - up from the 847.08 million metric tons it produced in 2000 - will be shortly overwhelmed by its official policies of producing baseload power from coal rather than nuclear.

You can look it up: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

Please note that I often mock Americans as well on this web site. We are the world's worst polluters, and we really, really, really, really, really like to hear what we want to hear. For the record, we have some of the dumbest energy ideas on earth. We are, afterall, the originators of the Hummer and the McMansion. We wrote the book on energy stupidity. I have no doubt whatsoever that if anything, the Germans are simply our best students.

But in the future, it is true that Germany can buy power from France, so on that score, you have better options than we do.

[Kellanved]

7. Well, that is an over-simplification of the Emission trading scheme

For Kyoto they do count. It's our wonderfull (:puke:) economy minister who sets the rules for CO2 trading.

As to the Opt-Out: You should be fine with that one; it's just a nice name for something that just as well might have been called the "extension of reactor lifespan act".

[NNadir]

9. You are building coal plants because you have ruled against nuclear.

That is a serious matter and effects the life of everyone on earth.

I am holding Germany up as an example of what anti-nuclear sentiments bring.

If Germany had a rational policy, a discussion of new nuclear plants would be acceptable. So the phase out is causing immediate damage to the prospects of survival of many people on the planet, since new nuclear plants cannot be discussed.

As the climate falls into a tailspin, Germany is building more coal plants instead of discussing a coal phase-out. And let's be clear, there is only one thing that can replace coal, irrespective of all the silly whining you may do about not immediately closing the nuclear plants: Nuclear energy. Solar plants operate only in the day. Wind plants operate whenever the hell they feel like it.

When I look at Berlin today the temperature is 35C and there isn't a very strong breeze.

http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/EDDT.html

The anti-nuclear position is the pro-coal position and Germany is demonstrating that in coal black spades.

[bananas]

11. France is importing electricity - nukes can't handle the heat

From the article in the original post:
"In France the electricity supplier EDF was buying in energy from neighbouring countries because of the high use of air-conditioning, and falling output from hydro-electric and nuclear power stations as a result of low, warm rivers."
http://www.terradaily.com/2006/060719115227.e1ai5k6a.html

[NNadir]

12. Again a case of nuclear exceptionalism.

All thermal plants have reduced efficiency in hot weather conditions, including coal fired plants. This is related to the second law of thermodynamics.

The difference between the French power circumstances and the circumstances of external countries, is that the French system is not making the situation worse.

It is true however that French nuclear stations put out slightly more heat than their coal based cousins. The French for this reason, recognizing that their rivers will probably collapse in the global climate change scenario, plant to build most of their new reactors on the coast.

The best plants for running in high temperatures are of course, combined cycle gas plants, but these plants of course are another example of plants that make global climate change worse. The Gen IV nuclear program calls for high thermal efficiency via combined plant missions, basically thermochemical hydrogen with heat output coupled to electrical generation.

But let me ask you, what is the anti-nuclear squad's plans for addressing this problem since it is occurring now? Note that in this case an answer "by 20xx" is not an answer to the question. Suppose all of the world's nuclear plants shut down as you wish? What do you do?

[Nihil]

13. Without wishing to derail your main points ...

... how do they intend to balance this:

> The French for this reason, recognizing that their rivers will probably
> collapse in the global climate change scenario, plant to build most of
> their new reactors on the coast.

... with the problems caused by rising sea-levels over the same time
period? (i.e., higher waterline, increased erosion, flooding & storm
damage to the electricity distribution network)

[NNadir]

14. I'm not sure about that.

Many ocean front areas are, of course on bluffs and hills regularly dot the shore.

I believe that our New Jersey nuclear plants could indeed be inundated some day. However some nuclear plants, like Diablo Canyon in California are indeed on bluffs.

The next nuclear plant to be built in France is the Flamanville in Normandy. I believe that Normandy also has bluffs, but I don't know how high Flamanville will be exactly.

If I were siting a PWR nuclear plant, I would situate it on high ground near the ocean, recognizing that there are many people who refuse to build nuclear plants and thus the ocean is sure to rise.

This is a problem, but I note it is a problem for all thermal power plants.

There is a gas plant in Redondo Beach California, and another in Morro Bay, California that will almost certainly be gone in the future.

San Onofre nuclear station in California may have enough altitude to make it through its design life.

This is a good point, and is a little remarked consequence of all thermal power plants. Climate change will increase the difficulty with which power plants can run.

In theory it is possible to air cool power plants, but it is expensive to build the heat exchangers. It is also theoretically possible to use waste heat for process heat or for space heating. With nuclear plants this has only been done, to my knowledge, in the former Soviet Union.

I believe that the Palo Verde nuclear power plants in Arizona are cooled by water that has been recovered from municipal sewage. Of course these nuclear plants depend on there being municipal water, which many not be the case in the future.

Combined cycle type plants reduce the dischare heat. There are examples of combined cycle gas plants and coal plants, but of course the use of these plants make global climate change even worse. The corresponding example of a combined cycle nuclear plant, a high temperature reactor that also produces thermochemical hydrogen, is still only in the pilot stage. However, nuclear power plants are the only realistic, broadly available, baseload type plants that do not produce climate change gases.

I have indeed worried some about this issue, and you have rasied an excellent point.

I also note that with global climate change, many rivers are likely to be greatly reduced in flow or to flow not at all. It may be possible to retrofit some nuclear power plants to be air cooled, but let's face it, if the rivers are gone - and they may be - many cities will be abandoned and many people will likely die.

As for storms, I note that the nuclear station at Turkey Point was directly hit by hurricane Andrew, which destroyed much of Florida in 1992. There was about 90 million dollars worth of damage to the plant, but no damage whatsoever to the nuclear portion.

Nuclear power is the best option, but it would be a lie to say that there are no problems with nuclear power. It is a risk minimized solution, but not a risk free solution.

[kestrel91316]

6. I REALLY don't think those Londoners would fare too well here in

Los Angeles. On Saturday it topped 110, and on Sunday it thankfully dropped just a few degrees but the humidity skyrocketed and we all just about got heat stroke sitting around doing nothing.

91.4 is nothing. We pray all summer for temps that low.

They aren't acclimated, so I guess it's harder for them.

[Nihil]

8. That's part of it ...

> They aren't acclimated, so I guess it's harder for them.

There is a difference (albeit psychological) between encountering
high temperatures where one expects high temperatures and doing the
same where one expects much lower values to be "normal".

I am working in London at the moment but although I know the temperature
is lower than last year's visit to Luxor, it 'feels' higher than it is.
This is partly due to physical aspects - London hasn't evolved as
a hot city but as a cool (frequently wet) one - and is partly due
to the psychological confusion wherein our current experience
differs from our learned expectations of temperature/humidity levels.

I think our expectations need to evolve to match the changing climate
but, until they do, there will be these "storm in a teacup" reports
from time to time. Hey, we still think it's funny how Houston shuts
down with a few flakes of snow :-)

[Kellanved]

10. Remember: no air conditioning

Hardly anything has A/C in Europe, people don't know how to deal with the heat.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. I recall after last year...

...The underground management was desperately trying to find ways of retro-fitting some sort of cooling to the system, but just couldn't come up with anything - the trains don't have space for A/C, and the tunnels are too deep (and london too crowded) to sink air-shafts to.

I'm glad I've missed the last couple of years. Sitting in a narrow tunnel that's carried a million sweaty armpits is, err, about as bad as it sounds.

On the plus side, that cold beer at St. Pancras is heaven. Imagine a thousand disheveled pin-stripe suits re-enacting Ice-cold in Alex. :D

[PaulaFarrell]

16. and they don't have air-conditioned homes and cars n/t