Two-thirds of the energy generated by the 2,100-megawatt Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, east of Toronto, comes in the form of heat, not electricity. The excess heat is transferred to cooling water that is dumped into Lake Ontario.
It all comes in the form of heat. I think what the author is trying to convey is that only 1/3 of the energy released by the reactor is converted into useful electricity.
I recall seeing some thermal efficiency numbers that were around the same ballpark. Best case would be exactly 42.6%, and going past that would require using some totally different kind of technology. Steam turbines just suck at this.
I read the article’s main point as being that waste heat is all around us, and in places that get cold (like the Great Lakes region), that heat can be moved to where it is useful.
I’m thinking of the brain meme where each level represents something better:
- Electric power is used to generate heat in places that need to be heated, using resistive heat.
- Electric powered heat pumps move heat from air where it’s not needed to places that do need heat, using heat pumps that draw heat from ambient air.
- Heat is transferred from places that actively need cooling to places that need heat.
The main point in the article is that if we’re using electricity to cool a place while also using electricity to heat a place, can we just use less electricity to move the heat from the place where it’s not wanted to the place where it is wanted?
So seen in that light, it’s not so much about how much thermal efficiency a power plant achieves, but rather a question about whether there is something better that can be done with that heat that doesn’t become electricity.
