Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Archerfenris t1_ixrp92w wrote

Seriously- what the hell are you talking about?

5

Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixs6ksu wrote

There talking about nuclear technologies from the 80’s and referencing some propaganda

2

marioquartz t1_ixsa76x wrote

Im referencing actual facts about actual nuclear centrals in France.

−1

Athegnostistian t1_ixya9wz wrote

Why France? This is about Germany. Are the German reactors of the same type?

Even if so, if Germany were to shut down their nuclear reactors, they would rely even more than already on French nuclear power, as well as fossil power (coal, oil, gas). The process of building more renewable energy sources won't be delayed due to the extension of runtime of these nuclear plants. Would you rather burn more fossil fuels and release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

Serious question. I'm trying to understand your position. What do you suggest?

1

Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixsbtoa wrote

No your not.

−2

The_GASK t1_ixseiyr wrote

>https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/warming-french-rivers-could-take-more-nuclear-supply-offline-2022-05-25/ > >https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-reduce-nuclear-power-output-as-french-river-temperatures-rise > >https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Hot-Rivers-To-Limit-French-Nuclear-Power-Output-Amid-Energy-Crisis.html > >Reality disagress. Actual present reactors in this present year in France.

While the danger was there for some steam turbines systems (generated by nuclear, fossil and biofuel energy), there was never a situation where the temperatures reached a critical level.

This is more a demonstration that alternatives to fossil fuel is necessary right now with more clean energy, including nuclear.

5

14DusBriver t1_ixs0s9u wrote

Thermal pollution is more manageable than CO2 emissions

Dump hot water into the water table and it’s not like it irreversibly contaminates the groundwater supply for generations.

5

Archerfenris t1_ixs35t2 wrote

The problem is that nuclear plants don’t return water back to nature…they take it away, but they don’t return it. It’s called a condenser and they keep using unused steam until it’s used up. I seriously have no clue where this idea that nuclear plants overheat rivers is coming from…

−2

Magickmaster t1_ixs4n7f wrote

In the end the water is returned to the environment. It's not 'used up' - that's not physically possible. Either through exhaust water or steam, it's going out again. But yeah, thr heat is used as much as possible.

7

Archerfenris t1_ixtldnc wrote

Right- but they’re not dumping boiling water into the rivers is my point.

1

Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixsbk4v wrote

Massive propaganda campaign was run from 70 to late 90s pushing this idea heavily. It only has a minor truth to it, where if a plant goes from critical to super critical, they will siphon and push water to cool old style reactors down, then put it back into a lake or river.

2

Archerfenris t1_ixtltzy wrote

Yeah- there is a serious anti-nuclear crowd and I’m all for if you’re just opposed to it, but it’s the lies and propaganda that get me

2

marioquartz t1_ixsagmt wrote

From Nuclear plants in France. Part of the water is returned to rivers. And even if you dont return it, there are other actual problem the input of water is too warn.

1

Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixsb6rf wrote

You have no idea how nuclear power works do you? In one sentence you demonstrated that you should not be trusted when it comes to these things because you cannot take the time to actually look into these things

2

marioquartz t1_ixsc19o wrote

−1

Preisschild t1_ixu3l5a wrote

The biggest american nuclear power plant is in a desert. They just use the nearby cities wastewater for cooling.

Plenty of solutions for this one issue.

0

Ecstatic_Carpet t1_ixru6rd wrote

Isn't this just an extension of the operating licenses for existing plants? I don't think they're building new ones.

−1