Talk:Cooling tower

Poor article
This is a piss poor article... of course it has a tacky and plebian Simpsons reference... I'll fix it, since it seems everyone else of worth has ignored it... 130.156.169.248 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. This sentence is also incorrect. "The primary use of cooling towers are to lower the temperature of power plant waste heat without causing heat pollution in nearby bodies of water." Cooling Towers are found on all large buildings or more accurately any where chillers are used. --67.3.219.78 06:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the two of you above and I believe that the edits, which I just made, have corrected the problems that you raised. mbeychok 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooling tower operational variables
This section needs the terms defined in non-technical terms. While some are self-explanatory, some are not. For example, what is "draw-off" rate? Remember, this article use to reference the Simpsons, so it has to make sense to a technical, but non-specialist audience! Samw 21:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Samw, I had to change some of your revisions to retain the technical correctness of the article. The cycles of concentration, as I had correctly given it has no dimensions ... it is simply a ratio of two concentrations both having the same dimensions. Your change indicated incorrectly that the cycles of concentration were expressed in ppmw.


 * The reason I have the line that reads "ppmw = parts per million by weight" is to make the sure the reader doesn't mistakenly think it is parts per million by volume (ppmv) ... which would be a serious mistake. Too many authors use ppm indiscriminately without explicitly stating whther they are using ppmw or ppmv.


 * The draw-off rate is D on my sketch, the evaporation rate is E on my sketch, windage loss is W on my sketch and C is the circulating cooling water on my sketch. Those are then also spelled out in the definition of variables just beneath the sketch.  They are all flow rates expressed in cubic meters of water per hour (m³/hr) as clearly shown in the definitions of variables just beneath the sketch. I just cannot see how to make all that any clearer than it already is. Even if it is a somewhat technical subject, the non-specialist reader must be able to read the given definitions and relate them to the sketch and should be able to comprehend the fact that cubic meters per hour is a flow rate.


 * There are two types of operational variables governing the performance of a cooling tower. One set of operational variable are those that govern how well the tower cools the circulating water, which is the primary function of cooling tower. You might call those the thermal design variables and they involve the wet bulb temperature of the ambient air as well as the basic design of the tower ... and that gets into a really hairy technical field that would take a small book to explain. The article I wrote does NOT delve at all into those thermal design variables and how to design the cooling capability of the tower.


 * The other set of operational variables are those that determine the material balance around the tower: how much dissolved salts (i.e., chlorides) are in the make-up water, how much salt-free water is evaporated, how much water is lost by windage, and how much salt-concentrated water must be withdrawn (and somehow disposed of) to maintain a desired cycles of concentration ... all of which is explained by the material and heat balance equations (i.e., relationships) derived in the article. The article I wrote is only concerned with those material balance operational variables. As I am sure you know, mathematical equations are the primary language for explaining most engineering and technical subjects. If the non-specialist wants to read this article, he/she must at least be able to understand material balances expressed in very simple high school algebra.


 * In any event, I had to reword your revision of the lead-in sentence to make clear that this article dealt only with the material balance operational variables ... rather than all of the operational variables (i.e., material balance variables and thermal design variables).


 * Editing the style of an article to fit the Wiki style is something I welcome ... but changing wording and changing equations leads to mistakes unless one really understands the subject matter very, very well.


 * Thanks for your help and interest. - mbeychok 08:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Samw, I did finally add a paragraph of explanation which I believe satisfies your wants. - mbeychok 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanatory paragraph. As for the mixup in defining the equation parameters, it was already there before my formatting changes.  See this version.  I thought something was wrong, but it was late and I didn't flag it when I should've.  (That's also why I try to breakup my edits into "minor" formatting edits and content edits.)


 * As for the distinction of material balance and operations/operating variables, point taken. I was confused by the section title.  I've taken the liberty of changing the title to "material balance".  Feel free to revert.  Also I may take the liberty of moving the explanatory text.  Progressive disclosure tries to have as much non-technical material up front as possible.  Samw 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem with changing the section title to "material balance", but I do think the title of the stand-alone article should stay as is. - mbeychok 05:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason why cooling towers are used
I have revised the lead-in discussion of why large industrial cooling towers are used. As noted in that discussion, a circulating water system with a cooling tower in a typical 700 MW coal-fired power operates at a water flow rate of about 71,600 cubic meters per hour and only a small part of that is lost to the atmosphere as evaporated water from the cooling tower and as blowdown, amounting to a makeup rate of perhaps a total of 4-5 percent. That compares to about 100,000 cubic meters of once-through water which must continuously be returned to the ocean, lake, or river and be replaced by fresh supply water. In other words, the amount of makeup water using a cooling tower is about a 95% reduction of the makeup supply water needed in a once-through system. In areas which are not near to an ocean, a large lake or a large river, the cooling tower is clearly a better choice than trying to supply once-through water from a well.

That is the reason why cooling towers are used despite the cost of building a cooling tower and despite the cost of chemicals used in a cooling tower system to control scale, pH, algae and biological growths. - mbeychok 06:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

More mundane information needed.
Whilst it's great to have all of the equations and the details of exactly what concentrations of disinfectant you need to clean them, some REALLY basic information is missing:


 * 1) How big are they (typically)?
 * 2) Why are they the shape they are?
 * 3) What goes on inside those things?  (We really need a photo of the inside)
 * 4) How are they constructed?
 * 5) What is their history?  Who invented them?  How did they evolve into their present shape?  What did we do before we had cooling towers?

Please think of all the really mundane questions a mere mortal might ask!

SteveBaker 03:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-locating all Legionella information in one section
Thanks to User:Copeland.James.H and User talk:199.82.243.73 for their contribution about air-conditioning cooling towers and Legionella disease. However, the result has been that such information is spread about in too many different places in the article.. Therefore, I plan to create a new section entitled "Cooling towers and Legionnaires' disease" and consolidate all of the Legionella information in that section. - mbeychok 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just finished about 5-6 hours of work on re-organizing and Wikifying all of the various information sections on Legionella. I think the article is now much more coherent. However, I would like say that, in my opinion, the primary purpose of this article is to explain what a cooling tower is, where  such towers are used, and how the overall system functions and is controlled ... rather than delving so deeply into all of the material on how to control Legionella. Here are two suggestions:


 * The entire section on "Maintenance, inspection and other guidelines for control of Legionella" could simply be replaced by a prominent reference to the various guidance documents from which that information was extracted (which are most of the documents now listed in the "External links" section). In my opinion, leaving all of that extracted material in this article is "overkill".
 * Some of the material in the "Other guidance and information for control of Legionella" section would really fit better into the existing Wikipedia article Legionella.


 * What do you all think of the above two suggestions? - mbeychok 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think all that material should be summarized into a paragraph or two, it looks like it was just copied directly out of a technical manual, and is just directions, rather then useful information. It takes up half the article, and isn't very useful; cut it back, with links to other articles and external references. --Nekura 20:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nekura, I agree completely with you. But I think that we should get additional input from at least a few others before I take any action. - mbeychok 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with moving the "Maintenance, inspection and other guidelines for control of Legionella" to into the existing Wikipedia article Legionella. There is some information currently in the Wikipedia article cooling tower that is not in the Wikipedia article Legionella. I recently updated the the Legionella Outbreak section to say Cooling Towers 149 Cases of Legionella during Jun-06 in Pamplona, Spain. They shut down at least 6 cooling towers after rapid tests for Legionella antigen were positive in four of the towers. A review of outbreaks in the past year, suggests that cooling towers remain prime suspects, so I suggest some strong links and references from the Wikipedia article cooling tower to the Wikipedia article Legionella. --Copeland.James.H 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * James, now that I have your comments and those of User:Nekura on the subject of moving most of the Legionella content to the Legionella article, I will do that within the next day or two. I will make sure that the Cooling tower article is strongly linked to the Legionella article ... and thanks for your comments. - mbeychok 17:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving most of Legionella information to Legionella
As discussed above, I have now removed a great deal of the information on the detailed maintenance guidelines for controlling Legionella. I am now in the process of inserting much of the removed information into the Legionella article. I think this article is now much more balanced and yet still stresses the importance of controlling Legionella in cooling towers. - mbeychok 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Cooling Tower Operation In Freezing Weather
I met a older structural engineer on the roof of an large industrial plant in Tupelo, MS. He asked me if I had ever seen a cooling tower fall through a roof? I said that I had not. He said that he had, and that it was almost impossible to put enough steel under a frozen pyramid of ice [of unlimited size] to support it. --Copeland.James.H 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

More basic information
I agree this lacks information on more typical units as well as general information. Whilst the huge hyperbolic towers are interesting, they make up relatively few in the overall installation base of towers. more typically at least in the US are cooling towers used in the HVAC market. More likely than not, a cooling tower is used in the air conditioning of one's office building (provided it's in a fairly large city).

And while Legionella is important topic, it's very rare.

I propose to add a section on definitions classifying different type towers and the components making up the equipment systems as well as the terms used in discussion.

Materials of construction (and methods ie factory assembled or erected on-site) and the basic principals of how/why they work will follow. Edreher 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Edreher, I agree with you that large industrial cooling towers and the smaller, roof-top air conditioning cooling towers are quite different. Anyone who has ever visited the vast oil refining and petrochemical complexes on the Gulf Coast or Texas and Louisiana (or Amsterdam in Holland as well many, many other worldwide locations) can testify to the fact that there are many thousands of very large industrial cooling towers in existence. And by the way, the vast majority of them are the rectangular type rather than the hyperbolic type.


 * It seems to me that whoever first started this article intended it to be about the large industrial towers. I fear that trying to do justice to both industrial towers and air conditioning towers in one article will lead to much confusion. There is an existing article on Air conditioning. As an alternative suggestion to yours, why not a section in that article dedicated to air conditioning towers? Or perhaps this article could be re-named "Industrial cooling towers" and you could write another new article named "Air conditioning cooling towers" ? I really think the two should not be combined in one article. - mbeychok 15:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to have two articles, under whatever names. I see we also have Cooling tower system. Where does that page fit into the scheme of things? Tom Harrison Talk 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, the Cooling tower system is a fairly short, concise, stand-alone article devoted entirely and only to the material balance equations involved in a cooling tower. It is intended for those who simply want to learn about the inter-relationships between makeup flows, draw-off (or blowdown) flows and evaporation losses ... and who are not interested in periphereal subjects like Legionnaire's disease, cold weather precautions, towers used as chimneys, the dimensions of large towers, etc. I think that article should remain as is. Once we try to expand articles in an attempt to please everyone, then confusion sets in.


 * Tom, as an administrator, can you change the title of this article to "Industrial Cooling Towers"? I don't have the faintest notion of how to do that. - mbeychok 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am certainly new to the wikipedia, but giving it a shot. I've made some changes already.  There's not much in the way of differences really between industrial and HVAC.  It's just one way of classifying them.  I agree as you stated that the original seemed to only focus on huge industrial cooling towers.  When I stated the proposal of a section on different classifications, I didn't mean industrial vs HVAC entirely.  Please take a glance at what I modified in the distinction of industrial vs HVAC.  This is close to about all I would discuss as differences.  Maybe I'd change more about the industrial section, but I'm still a little hesitant in changing others' work.


 * That being said, I don't believe there should be separate entries. In fact I don't believe the Cooling tower system should even exist.  All of this should be in this entry.


 * I'm trying to think of it in the terms of my old computer programing; "encapsulation" was it? The cooling tower can be used for various processes, be it cooling part of an air-conditioning system, dog-food cans, a power plant's generator, or cooling and de-gassing hot well water.  I think this article should describe how and why a cooling tower works, it's various pieces and styles, considerations in it's use and some of the possible applications.Edreher 19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually anyone can move(rename) a page, but if people disagree, no one should do so until there has been discussion and we arrive at a consensus. I sometimes find it helpful to think about what information should be together, and let the pages, and then the article titles, follow from that. For example, are we going to write about a particular type of structure, like door, or about a mechanism, like building ingress/egress?


 * Edreher, who I hope will correct me if I've misunderstood, leans toward describing the structure. Mbeychok, maybe, prefers to organize the pages around function, tying them into the processes they support. Tom Harrison Talk 19:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Eric and Tom, I made this comment posted about 30 minutes ago but it seems to have been lost somehow or other. Now that I've seen the changes made to this article, I am perfectly happy with them and congratulate Eric on doing a good job. So there is no need to rename this article and I have struck out my request made above. I have made just a few minor editing changes to Eric's work, but they are very minor.


 * (As I said in my comment posted about 30 minute ago which got lost) The Cooling tower system is a fairly short, concise, stand-alone article devoted entirely and only to the material balance equations involved in a cooling tower. It is intended for those who simply want to learn about the inter-relationships between makeup flows, draw-off (or blowdown) flows and evaporation losses ... and who are not interested in periphereal subjects like Legionnaire's disease, cold weather precautions, towers used as chimneys, the dimensions of large towers, types of towers, etc. I think that article should remain as is.


 * Eric, it would be very useful if you created a User page which would automatically include a User Talk page. Then we could communicate more directly.  For example, I wanted to make you aware that the photo image you uploaded needs to comply with Wikipedia policy about getting permmision to use photos (unless they are your own photos) and the need to select one of the available GNU licensing options. Otherwise, your image may soon be removed by one of the Wikipedians who patrol on the lookout for images that don't comply with Wiki policy. - mbeychok 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you characterize my view correctly. If we were to provide separate "industrial cooling towers" and "air-conditioning cooling towers" we would either repeat far too much information or have very little information, referring all else to a common "cooling tower" article.

At the risk of starting something like the Industrial v. Comfort tower discussion, I have started compiling a list of pros and cons of each form of tower (cross- & counter- flow). Anyone with more experience is welcome to chime in, I have limited experience in specifying towers. LightRobb (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

More basic information (Part 2)
Mbeychok, I'm happy my changes seem to be acceptable so far. I'll look into creating this User page as you state. (I did find I forgot a copyright tag and have since corrected it. I only intend to use photos of my own.  I've got quite a few.)

Let me re-phrase some proposed organization as:


 * General
 * Definitions (should this be a "glossary" at the end?)
 * How a cooling tower works physically
 * components
 * schematic
 * History


 * catergorization by use
 * industrial
 * HVAC


 * catergorization by air flow generation
 * natural draft
 * mechanical draft
 * hybrid


 * categorization by air-to-water flow
 * crossflow
 * counterflow


 * categorization by heat transfer
 * [wet] cooling tower
 * dry cooling tower
 * hybrid


 * methods and materials of construction
 * factory assembled vs field erected
 * materials: wood, steel, concrete, fiberglass, other
 * shapes
 * fill material: splash, film


 * performance details
 * what is there now, I forget the description.
 * psycrometrics


 * uses other than cooling water
 * gas flue
 * de-gassing water


 * Considerations of use
 * use during freezing conditions
 * extended shutdown
 * Legionella

Edreher 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Eric, that's a very ambitious outline and I hope you realize how much work is involved. After only a brief scan, I offer these two comments:


 * Getting into psychrometrics is getting too far into detail and perhaps even into how to design a cooling tower. We are not writing for engineers (and I am one) ... we are writing for the general public. I tried getting into detail when I first came to Wikipedia and got told quite often that we are not writing "How to" engineering textbooks. In fact, I was told that there is a division of Wiki that caters only to "How To" articles. On the other hand, a separate short article explaining what a pyschrometric chart is and in what applications it is used might be a good idea ... as long as it didn't get into how to read or how to use the chart, which again turns it into an engineering textbook.


 * As for a glossary, that may be useful for certain very unique terms. But for general terms, it is preferred that we "Wikify" an article with internal links.  For example, in your editing, you used the words natural draft Since there is an existing Wikipedia article called Stack effect, I Wikified your natural draft by linking it to that existing article by changing it to natural draft which produced natural draft.  In other words, there is no need to define terms in a glossary that can be Wikified by linking to an existing article that explains the term. With that said, if you do end up with a glossary of some terms, I think it is best at the end of the article (just before any "References" section or "See also" section or "External links" section ... which most good articles have).


 * One final word of advice, the more you use the preview option at the bottom of an editing page to proof read your contribution, the better it is. I cannot stress how important that is. It really cuts down on word omissions, mis-spellings and grammar mistakes. It also reduces the amount or work required for others who must afterwards clean up your writing.


 * I hope that I have been helpful. - mbeychok 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mbeychok, both of your points make good sense. The cross referencing makes complete sense in this format to the point of "I should have thought of that" I appreciate the comments. I see what minor changes you made to my additions, I'll try to keep a closer eye on the changes to avoid trivial mistakes. I will be pleased if I can provide enough to make this a little more complete. I'll try not to overdo it. Edreher 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics of using a linear structure for heat exchange
It seems to me that something which should be stated right off in this article is that a "linear structure," approximated by a cylinder, will have the greatest surface area to volume ratio. This is as opposed to a sphere which has the smallest surface to volume ratio. This is the reason to use towers in the first place as heat exchangers, evaporators, etc. The article needs this overlying theme! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.227.123 (talk • contribs) 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are indeed correct about the geometry of cylinders versus spheres. However, I really think that is a theme which belongs in the Heat exchanger article rather than here. - mbeychok 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Collapse of Cooling Towers
Sometime in the 60's a cooling towers "farm" (not sure of the collective noun) in the UK collapsed because they had been built too close together. Does anybody have a reference for this in the design section? 193.130.175.129 15:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Found this website using Google. A quote from the website:


 * On November 1st, 1965, three of a group of eight cooling towers at Ferrybridge collapsed in less than one hour. The others were severely cracked. The towers had been built closer together than was usual, were each 375ft high and had greater shell diameters and shell surface areas than any previous towers.:A high wind speed (which occurred on average once in two to five years) was the immediate trigger for the collapse, but the real causes were fourfold:
 * British Standard wind speeds were not used in the design, and therefore the design wind pressures at the top of the tower were 19% lower than they should have been.
 * Basic wind speed was interpreted and used as the average over one minute, whereas in reality the structures are susceptible to much shorter gusts.
 * ''The wind loading was based on experiments using one isolated tower. It was not realized that the grouping of the towers created turbulence on the leeward ones – the ones that did in fact collapse.
 * The safety margins did not really cover any uncertainty in the wind loading, and other more general uncertainties.


 * These four causes group together to show that the primary cause of the failure was due to a serious underestimation of the wind loading in the design.
 * Does this answer your question? - mbeychok 17:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

a question
hi, i have a question about cooling towers. what's the economical kind of the cooling towers in saving energy with more value of cooled water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.251.15 (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC) a It really depends on your application and climate but wet/dry or adiabatic/dry hybrids often offer the best energy savings for closed circuit applications. Crossflow axial-fan open cooling towers offer the best energy savings for open towers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 李艾连 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Cooling tower system
I deleted this section, and added a reference to the Cooling tower system article. It is inappropriate for the same info to be placed in two locations. Fireproeng 02:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fireproeng, I don't think that any one person should unilaterally decide to delete a complete, major section from any article before it is discussed thoroughly and a concensus is reached. That section has been in this article for almost two years and nobody has before objected to it.


 * With all due respect, I am reverting your deletion for at least 2-3 weeks so that it can be discussed here. - mbeychok 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem to discuss. What advantage could having the same information existing in two places have? Is the intent to maintain both sets of edits? Not all editors will know this, so one version will inevitably end up being different (some would view one as "better"). Per WP polisy, this situation is to be avoided in general. For example, see WP:Merge, There are several good reasons to merge a page: Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope." In this case, instead of a Merge, this having been discussed on the Cooling tower systems talk page and rejected for now, I thought the way to delete the duplication was my edit.


 * As a point not related to the technical article, I would like to point out that it is appropriate for one person to delete a section of an article without prior discussion, as consensus building is not required if the edit seems obvious. Of course, if someone disagrees, then here we are, which is no problem. For example, having exactly the same information is a reason given on WP:Merge for performing a merge, accomplishing the same objective as not having the same info in two places. (From WP:Merge, "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed.") Fireproeng 04:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fireproeng, please understand that I am not per se against deleting the "Cooling tower system" section from this article. I was, and still am, concerned about anyone unilaterally deleting a complete, major section of an article without first discussing it. Regardless of the quotes you provided from WP:Merge, I am of the opinion that the very essence of Wikipedia is the collaboration that is involved in the evolution of an article. You are probably aware that Wikipedia has a number of templates for proposing mergers and that they are quite commonly used. To me, that means that many Wikipedians feel that mergers should first be proposed. Why else have the merger proposal templates if not to use them?


 * You make a some good points in favor of the deletion, but I still feel we should wait a while and see what others may think. Regards, - mbeychok 06:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * mbeychok, I'll move the discussion of appropriate consensus building to your talk page, if that's OK, as it does not refer directly to this page's subject.


 * Okay by me, if you so wish. But there will probably be no further discussion on concensus building because I've already expressed all my thoughts on that subject. - mbeychok 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As far the edit - what do you think? Fireproeng 13:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As for your proposed edit, as I said above, I want to give others a chance to voice their opinion and I will go along with the concensus. - mbeychok 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that two copies of the same material will rapidly become confusing as the texts evolve separately. I'd say the material from Cooling tower system should remain in this article, and then Cooling tower system should redirect to this page. Kindest regards, AlphaEta T / C 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * mbeychok, please see Consensus. It is not reached by polling, but by reasoned discussion. If you won't express your point of view, we are unable to reach consensus that includes your arguments. Also, WP consensus does not imply agreement prior to an article change. Please see Be bold. Cheers. Fireproeng 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In truth, I would prefer leaving things as they now are. However, if a change must be made, then I would choose to redirect Cooling tower system to this article simply because newcomers would be more apt to search for Cooling tower than for Cooling tower system. - mbeychok 06:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So, what do you say: ready to be bold and pull the trigger?-- Fireproeng (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, I just redirected Cooling tower system to this article. Happy Thanksgiving! -- mbeychok (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasted Energy?
I like to think of myself as being semi-smart, but for the life of me I cannot reason out why cooling towers are needed for nuclear power plants. To me it seems like a massive waste of energy. Why can't the steam be fed directly back to the reactor after it passes through the turbine? I would think that it would be a major benefit to have water that is already hot going in so that less energy has to be added to turn it into steam again. The only reason that I can come up with is that the steam has to be cooled enough for it to condense back to liquid water. Does anybody have any insight into this? Ratsbew (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To get the maximum amount of energy out of the steam fed to the steam turbines, the exhaust steam is cooled and condensed under a vacuum (an absolute pressure of about 38 mm of mercury, as compared to atmospheric pressure of 760 mm of mercury). So there is no "massive waste of energy" by condensing the turbine exhaust steam. The condensed steam is then pumped back into the steam generating system. Read the Surface condenser article.


 * The quite low level heat rejected from the cooling towers probably could be used for district heating in some cases, if viable economically, socially and politically. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful information, I appreciate it. Ratsbew (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ratsbew and Mbeychok, your exchange on wasted energy here answered a question that arose in my mind as I was reading the article, what is the purpose of releasing heat into the atmosphere at a power station that is built to produce electricity (which in turn is often used to produce heat in residential and commercial buildings)? I think the gist of your discussion deserves a separate section in the article, explaining this paradox to people such as me, who really have no understanding of how cooling towers work but who question the waste. 207.7.149.19 (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a nuke plant, but our coal plant here in town sends the steam left from power generation down the street a couple miles to four or five industries that use it for various processes. A lot of it is released to the atmosphere by the industries, but at least it gets a little more use.LightRobb (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP is misunderstanding some elements of the Rankine cycle. No offense :)

The turbines turn because the pressure is high on one side and low on the other. The pressure is low at the outlet because the steam is immediately cooled and condenses into a liquid. The gas-liquid transition causes a much larger change in pressure than simply changing the gas temperature while remaining gas. Plus, the condensed liquid is still pretty hot, and gets heated up to just below boiling before getting sent back to the main heat source. Most modern turbines have several stages where the steam gets re-heated a couple times before getting condensed and sent back to the boiler or reactor or whatever. Steam quality limits this, since water droplets in a turbine act like marbles in a blender. :(

What you described above is more like a Brayton cycle, where the working fluid is just gas at different temperatures, with no phase changes. This is efficient only when you have a large temperature difference between the inlet and outlet of the turbine (necessary to create an acceptable pressure difference), which is difficult to accomplish with a coal fired boiler, or with a nuclear reactor. Natural gas power plants use a once-through variant of this cycle, which is easy since the combustion takes place basically inside the turbine. Like a jet engine. Some of the newer nuclear plants also operate hot enough to make this work, though they use a closed-cycle loop with helium or something as the working fluid.

The stuff coming out of a cooling tower is not steam, btw. It's air mixed with water that was sprayed into the base of the tower and which got absorbed by the rushing air, taking a lot of heat with it. The rest of the water falls like rain and gets collected. So basically a cloud is coming out of the tower, at a few degrees above ambient temperature. The cooling tower water is the water that's used to cool the water that goes through the actual turbine, and isn't allowed to mix with the turbine water. If that makes any sense... This separation is important, since for some nuclear plants the turbine water is radioactive. Maybe its different in coal plants idk. Probably not since they want the condensed steam to be at lower than atmospheric pressure.

IDK112 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Environmental Impact of Industrial Cooling
I think this needs to be discussed in more detail, with better references and description of the once-through vs. closed cycle environmental debate. Water consumption vs. water withdrawal, wildlife impinging/entraining, thermal effects of once through cooling and blowdown pollution should all be mentioned. Or at least more prominent links to the appropriate pages. IDK112 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The good industrial practice of 50 ppm drift loss for cooling towers with sea water application is not adequate. It should be 5 ppm for sea water application. Otherwise the PM10 particulate emission of Sodium chloride is exceesive which would degrade the agriculture land, corrode the structures and also cause respiratory & health problems in the visinity. I request to diffentiate the drift emission limits based on sea water and fresh water make up. If possible, please include the environmental standards applicable for drift emissions from cooling towers in various countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.206.236 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Article had 23 images which was just too excessive by far.
I removed 11 of the 23 images and the article still has 12 images.

The caption of one of the removed photos emphasized water flow from the bottom of the hyperboloid tower ... but the water could not be seen.

One was an inside view of an abandoned hyperboloid tower by someone who must have lying on hos back to take the photo ... but it did nothing to enhance the technology of the article.

Another was a "cute" photo of a windmill in front of a hyperboloid tower ... but again nothing to enhance the article's textual content.

Another was a photo of the stairs at the bottom of a hyperboloid tower ... that one was neither "cute" nor instructive in any way.

One photo of the Legionella bacteria is sufficient ... no need to have two of them, so removed one of them.

Another hyperboloid tower loomed over a two-story house ... bu did nothing to enhance the article's textual content.

Two of the photo's illustrated the water vapor fog created by some hyperboloid towers. No need to show the same thing twice, sone one of them was deleted.

Another photo of hyperboloid towers in the Ukraine was in the "See also"section. They looked essentially the same as the towers in the introductory section ... so it was deleted.

Another photo was of a crossflow, rectangular cooling tower (which I had placed in the article about 4 years ago) that seemed now not to add anything of substance to the article.

And so forth. I think the 12 remaining articles are more than enough. After all, this is a technical article about cooling tower technology ... it is not a cooling tower photographic gallery. mbeychok (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

European market
The section entitled "European market" consists of one table based on Reference 15. When I click on that reference, my Firefox browser warns me that it is not a website to be trusted.

When I conducted a Google search for other sources of European cooling tower markets, I found that all such reports were confidential and only available for purchase (in the hundreds of Euros). I am led to believe that even the data in Reference 15 came from one such confidential, costly report ... which means that the "European market" section may be violating someone's copyright.

In brief, Reference 15 cannot be accessed to verify the tabulated data ... and if it could be accessed, it may be violating a copyright. What should we do?? In my opinion, Reference 15 should be deleted since it cannot be accessed. That means that the "European market" section would need to be deleted as well since it would contain no content. Again in my opinion, deleting that section would not be removing any content of great significance.

What do others think? mbeychok (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I dislike deleting content, I agree with this one, for the reasons stated. --Reify-tech (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dry cooling towers
Dry cooling towers or Heller dry cooling system and Air cooled condensers (ACC) and fin fan coolers are also relevant to be included in this article ‘Cooling towers’. The present content is totally about the wet cooling towers. ACCs are more and more used in thermal power stations due to the scarcity of perennial cheap water supply, no land required for makeup water storage, water & air pollution from wet cooling towers, lesser overall auxiliary power consumption, no chemicals (water & effluent treatments, biocides, anti scaling and anti corrosion) and fog problems in both tropical and cold countries equally though their cooling approach temperatures are not comparable to wet cooling towers. Sometimes fin fan coolers are provided with evaporative cooler as accessory to achieve enhanced cooling in dry and hot ambient conditions if water is available. It is requested to add content about dry cooling in this article. 124.123.220.131 (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it would be far better to create a separate, stand-alone article on dry cooling systems ... and entitle it as "Dry cooling systems" rather than "Dry cooling towers". I find it difficult to visualize air-cooled condensers as being "towers". As you noted yourself, dry cooling systems are very different from wet cooling towers (i.e., no water treatment, no scaling, no fog plumes, no air pollution, no freezing, no Legionnaires disease) and hence a separate, stand-alone article makes good sense. mbeychok (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Issue of external links
(Conversation copied from User talk:Morgan Riley and posted here for full disclosure of off-talk page discussion): That anonymous user added an external link to a company website. When an anonymous newcomer to WP makes only one edit, the addition of a link to his/her company's website, the odds are that he/she is only interested in advertising that company's website. I therefore removed the link ... and 117.192.117.123 added it in again. I removed it a second time and 117.192.117.123 has again added that link.

I don't want to continue this edit "warring" any further. Would you take a look and see what you can do? mbeychok (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed that it looks suspiciously like spam, even if well-intentioned; if not spam, then its marginal educational value should be discussed before its replacement. I removed the link, added the Template:No more links hoping that may help some, and requested that before its replacement that it be discussed at the talk page. Also, good call on 3RR, keeping your cool, and bringing in a third party. Cheers! Morgan Riley (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(End of user talk discussion:) Morgan Riley (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many images??
This article now has 22 images which strikes me as too many by far!! Everyone having a photo of a cooling tower seems to have posted it in this article. mbeychok (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cooling tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080922134426/http://www.medscape.com:80/viewarticle/521680 to http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/521680

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear power
Nobody gives a shit about coal or HVAC cooling towers - this article should really focus on nuclear power plants. Then maybe add a little filler about all those thermal stations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.207.202 (talk • contribs)
 * There's no substantial difference between a hyperboloid tower for a coal plant and a hyperboloid tower for a nuclear plant. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * People absolutely give a shit about comfort and industrial processes cooling applications - they are the most common uses of cooling towers.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cooling tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927104349/http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/IEP_Power_Plant_Water_R%26D_Final_1.pdf to http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/IEP_Power_Plant_Water_R%26D_Final_1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/521680
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927151339/http://spxcooling.com/pdf/H-003B.pdf to http://spxcooling.com/pdf/H-003B.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.awt.org/Legionella03.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gewater.com/pdf/tech73.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Error in the section - Heat Transfer Methods
Hi All

I think I have found an error in the page. The "heat transfer methods" section says the following:

"Approximately 420 kilojoules per kilogram (970 BTU/lb) of heat energy is absorbed for the evaporated water."

This I believe is referring to the latent heat of vaporization of water. In which case the number 420 kJ/kg looks wrong, a number more like 2,256 kJ/kg would be more appropriate (@ 100 deg C). The BTU/lb number looks OK to me.

If this is a stupid mistake/comment I apologize.

Thanks,

Jords787 (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an issue with Wikipedia's "convert" function and it is being addressed over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Convert#BTU/lb Fastidiously (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Other dangers
In Quebec, where the average of those who have died is 79, the outbreak's source is believed to be water cooling towers. Towers are being inspected and disinfected with bromine, according to Canadian media reports.

https://www.livescience.com/22760-5-things-you-should-know-about-legionnaires-disease.html Zezen (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable citation about legionella
The line

> Studies have found Legionella in 40% to 60% of cooling towers.

Cites this pdf: https://web.archive.org/web/20210513193135/http://www.cti.org/downloads/WTP-148.pdf

which just states that "Various studies have shown that some 40 to 60% of cooling towers tested contained Legionella." without any proof or further citation. Panosfirbas (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)