• RidderSport@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 days ago

    Unusual? Hasn’t that happened annually fir a few years now? I’d argue that this is the new usual

  • BaraCoded@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Hnery@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yumm! No need to dine in Restaurants anymore! Sous-vide nine eyed fish straight out of river Seine!

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      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).

    • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Little alternatives, other than boiling off all the fish in the river.

      • Legeres_Idol@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • Photonic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.