On: The lesson about the end of nuclear in Germany

[martin_a]

> we could have had a crazy nuclear capacity with very strict, modern standards.

Would that help though, if drought periods hit Western Europe, like last year, and water levels in the rivers are as low as they were?

[Wilya → martin_a]

In France last summer, some plants had indeed to be shut down because of the drought but:

* a minority of plants were involved, it was only an issue because it happened on top of other issues (planned maintenances delayed due to covid, corrosion issues)

* the problem isn't actually the drought, it was the heat. The plants could keep operating, but they would have rejected water too hot, in breach of environmental regulations.

Besides, new plants can be built close to the sea instead of rivers to account for that.

[martin_a → Wilya]

> Besides, new plants can be built close to the sea instead of rivers to account for that.

I think that's a no-go due to the salt in the water that will corrode pipes etc. Not an expert on that, though, obviously.

All the other points don't sound too good either: Corrosion issues, let's fuck up nature with hot water, not very good at all.

[mrpopo → martin_a]

It's possible to build nuclear plants by the sea, and it's actually commonly built. There are some in France, China, Korea, etc.

[Moldoteck → martin_a]

I'm sure, they can figure that out with something similar to irrigation channels and/or solar panels along river/channels to prevent evaporation. Would they do this? That's another question

[illiarian → martin_a]

0.18% of nuclear power generation was lost due to water levels and temperatures.

Also nothing stops you from building nuclear plants in other locations