It's been the case for years, and the reason why nuclear cannot be the only energy energy source, especially during summer. Hot rivers cannot cool down a nuclear reactor.
The reactor(s) don't care if the water is 20c or 30c so they don't shut down the plant(s) because the river is too hot to cool them. They shut them down because the output water becomes so hot that it kills flora and fauna.
That's bullshit. Hot rivers can cool down reactors quite well (you just don't want even hotter rivers for different environmental reasons) and so can closed cooling loops.
The actual reason against nuclear is that it's economical insanity, always has been and always will. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Stories about imaginary reasons against nuclear out there are actually a helpful tool for the pro-nuclear side. They have something to easily debunk while also keeping the discussion away from the only thing that actually matters: the ridiculous costs.
Depending on a nearby river being cool is not the only way for water cooling loops (which are needed not only for nuclear, but for any power plant using steam turbines).
Well, I'd say you get energy and bouillabaisse. That's killing two birds fish with one stone! Clearly the advantages of nuclear energy everyone is talking about.
Well that’s a bit of an exaggeration, I read somewhere (don’t know exactly so don’t pin me down on it) that the temperature difference due to the water coming out of the power plant is only about 0.2 degrees compared to the water upstream of the plant.
What I meant by counterproductive is that shutting down an emissionless mode of energy production, which could have helped to slow down air and water temperatures worldwide (and ultimately in the same river as well) seems counterproductive.
15 Comments
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 46 pts · 33d
Not unusual anymore.
emmanuel_car@fedia.io · 8 pts · 33d
I was not expecting a Dinner for One reference! On a French story nonetheless!
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 33d
It's a german classic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
emmanuel_car@fedia.io · 1 pts · 33d
Exactly, not a French one!
RidderSport@feddit.org · 33 pts · 33d
Unusual? Hasn't that happened annually fir a few years now? I'd argue that this is the new usual
BaraCoded@literature.cafe · 16 pts · 33d
It's been the case for years, and the reason why nuclear cannot be the only energy energy source, especially during summer. Hot rivers cannot cool down a nuclear reactor.
Buelldozer@lemmy.today · 24 pts · 33d
The reactor(s) don't care if the water is 20c or 30c so they don't shut down the plant(s) because the river is too hot to cool them. They shut them down because the output water becomes so hot that it kills flora and fauna.
haerrii@feddit.org · 4 pts · 32d
Yumm! No need to dine in Restaurants anymore! Sous-vide nine eyed fish straight out of river Seine!
Ooops@feddit.org · 5 pts · 32d
That's bullshit. Hot rivers can cool down reactors quite well (you just don't want even hotter rivers for different environmental reasons) and so can closed cooling loops.
The actual reason against nuclear is that it's economical insanity, always has been and always will. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Stories about imaginary reasons against nuclear out there are actually a helpful tool for the pro-nuclear side. They have something to easily debunk while also keeping the discussion away from the only thing that actually matters: the ridiculous costs.
Jajcus@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 33d
Depending on a nearby river being cool is not the only way for water cooling loops (which are needed not only for nuclear, but for any power plant using steam turbines).
kernkurios@feddit.org · 4 pts · 33d
"Unusual"—now that’s a keen observation.
Photonic@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 33d
This seems… counterproductive
poVoq@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 33d
Little alternatives, other than boiling off all the fish in the river.
Legeres_Idol@feddit.org · 5 pts · 33d
Well, I'd say you get energy and bouillabaisse. That's killing two
birdsfish with one stone! Clearly the advantages of nuclear energy everyone is talking about.Photonic@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 33d
Well that’s a bit of an exaggeration, I read somewhere (don’t know exactly so don’t pin me down on it) that the temperature difference due to the water coming out of the power plant is only about 0.2 degrees compared to the water upstream of the plant.
What I meant by counterproductive is that shutting down an emissionless mode of energy production, which could have helped to slow down air and water temperatures worldwide (and ultimately in the same river as well) seems counterproductive.