France, heavily invested in nuclear, now has to shut down their reactors each summer as, due to climate change, the cooling water from rivers cant be used any more to cool the reactors. So much about being future proof. And let's not even get into the argument why no private company ever financed a nuclear reactor, but only build them with huge subsidies from states. Hint: it is because they are completely uneconomically. (and dont come with the argument of experimental small scale reactors, they are all just experimental and none proven)

▲

wolvesechoes 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> the cooling water from rivers cant be used any more to cool the reactors. So much about being future proof.

There are more reactor types than water-cooled reactors, and modern energy plants should use cooling towers even if some water reservoir is available, nuclear or not.

> it is because they are completely uneconomically

This is why private sector cannot provide infrastructure. State is not a company.

▲

goobatrooba 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not all need a river to cool but every single nuclear power plant needs a consistent water source 1) to actually generate the energy (steam!), 2) to cool, 3) as emergency safeguard when things go wrong. If you followed the news about Russia's attack on Ukraine and the risks to Zaporizia much of it was about fear of an incident, among others due to water sources or the energy to bring water to the plant being at risk

	▲	wolvesechoes 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> 1) to actually generate the energy (steam!) Secondary loop can be made closed system. This reduces efficiency, but this could be acceptable considering water scarcity. Of course there would be some leaks etc. so water needs to be resupplied, but in much lesser amounts. > 2) to cool Not necessarily true, because primary loop doesn't need to have water (HTG, MSR, LMR reactors). HTG reactor actually doesn't need water at all and can power gas turbine directly. LMR, depending on chosen coolant, can do this as well, though it requires heat exchanger.

▲

pqtyw 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are nuclear plants in much warmer places than France. And well.. in hindsight climate change probably wouldn't be as bad as it is if nuclear continued growing at the same pace as in the 60s and 70s.

> Hint: it is because they are completely uneconomically

Yes, natural gas and fossil fuels were cheaper than nuclear too. That and the irrational panic is what killed it. At this point its probably too late (and renewables are more feasible option unless there are some significant technological advancements), but if you add up all the long-term costs and externalities nuclear would have turned out to be much cheaper in the 80s and 90s than it seemed on paper.

Just coal alone used to kill (probably still does worldwide) more people every year than Chernobyl ever did... What is the cost of that?

▲

draven 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The water can still be used to cool down the reactors. But the water injected back into the river would then be too hot for the river's ecosystem.