• sociamator@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought that if it came to an emergency they could keep the reactors running, only the exhaust water would be too hot and river wildlife would die around the vents.

      On a longer-term basis they could switch to cooling towers that use evaporative cooling. Then they don’t have the rivers too hot problem.

      • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I thought that if it came to an emergency they could keep the reactors running, only the exhaust water would be too hot and river wildlife would die around the vents.

        France has already upped the maximum temperature legally allowed two or so years ago. And while short term that is a solution, the fact is that us humans need working ecosystems to survive. It’s not just fishers being impacted, ecosystems are connected and we’re cutting into them at record pace anyway.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Rivers are going to get a lot or do the global warming than they will do to those nuclear reactors if you leave those reactors off for long enough

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        So instead of running hot, the river runs dry?

        Any thermal electricity plant uses an insane amount of water. For every kWh of electricity generated, about 1.5-2 kWh need to be cooled away.

        A pure air cooling system is theoretically possible, but it drastically reduces the plants efficency, as the energy you can recoup at the turbine is directly dependant on the temperature difference between the hot and the cold side.

        So in any way thermal plants are never going to be an option that is favourable to build now, over building renewables, except for a small degree of net stability that can be provided by already existing plants.

        • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Just so people get the dimensions: somewhere over half(!) of French potable water is used to cool nuclear plants. The dimensions are similar when it comes to coal plants in Germany (but at least Germany plans to exit coal).

          France gets a significant portion of its river water from glaciers in the Alps, e.g. that’s 20% of the Rhône water. Those glaciers will not survive the next 15 years.

          • pizzaiolo@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            By then I’m guessing many nuclear plants will have been taken offline, since they’re already pretty old

    • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some of the power plants are also falling apart because of “stress corrosion” first considered small but relevant but as it turns out bigger than they wanted to admit at first and they have to rethink the way to repair them: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-nuclear-watchdog-says-corrosion-crack-flagged-by-edf-penly-1-reactor-2023-03-07/

      They try to speed up building more power plants at a time when we know that many other power plants have needed up to 12 years more time to be built than estimated with exploding cost and all they could come up with in their newest law was to allow parking lots to be built early:

      https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2023/05/17/french-government-passes-bill-to-accelerate-the-construction-of-new-nuclear-reactors_6026936_19.html

      the first pair of new reactors is supposed to come into service by 2035

      For a comparison: “Nuclear reactor Olkiluoto 3 has gone online in Finland some 12 years behind schedule and on a massively inflated budget. The 1.6 gigawatt (GW) reactor, built by the French-led Areva-Siemens consortium, had originally been due to open in 2009.”

      That’s 2 new reactors 12 years from now (or even 24 years from now), while their current power plants are falling apart and this is the earliest possible estimate, which will most likely not be met. So when they are built, they will not be actually adding to the power produced but just replace the oldest nuklear power plants still running.

      This could be funny if it weren’t such a waste of time and money while our time and money to steer us away from doom is running out.

    • clutchmatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The way things are getting hot, one might just dispense with the primary reactor housing and the fuel and leave the water circulating in the environment to then power the turbines