Discussion
"France's main energy provider on Sunday, July 12, said three nuclear reactors had been temporarily shut down and eight others were operating at reduced power due to the heatwave." - https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/07/12/france-powers-down-several-nuclear-reactors-due-to-extreme-heat_6755404_7.html
So it turns out nuclear power was not part of the answer to climate breakdown after all...
@GeofCox Liquid molten salt, is in its essence, very hot stuff.
Too bad gamma rays weren't solved decades ago, otherwise China might have it well distributed in The Global South already - well, along with MIT's corrosion solves of recent years.
@GeofCox Well, France has about 37 reactors and at the moment they take it in count to regularly close some. Wait for the big datacenters needing abnormal more energy yet ... plus some more droughts ...
@GeofCox lots of energy generation struggles in heat and cold. The pwer stations are being shut to avoid damaging the environment according to France24. Reducing our energy demand would help, shooting AI would help, people using any type of car less would help....
@GeofCox Not to say that I'm in favor of nuclear power, but the time when reactors may need to be shut down is exactly the time when solar power generation is at its maximum. I don't really see the problem.
Nuclear as substitution for high carbon power would have helped.
Nuclear as addendum doesn’t.
@GeofCox They are still operating at reduced power, still helping to oppose human-driven climate change. What is your actual problem with nuclear power?
Europe's grid has to stomach much worse volatility daily, weekly, monthly from other sources, which go to zero on a whim.
If you question some volatility, those other sources would be dead in the water. Do you really think »oh if it shut down here, it doesn't work at all«? Or do you just say whatever you like depending on what »it« is?
I guess it causes a severe cognitive dissonance that France has already decarbonized its grid decades ago using nuclear power.
@GeofCox Should we also say that solar isn't part of the solution when the sun isn't shining, or wind when the wind isn't blowing, or water when the streams aren't flowing?
I absolutely agree that nuclear isn't the _only_ answer, and that we may be able to use more of everything else so we can avoid the potential hazards of nuclear, but this argument seems weirdly slippery and tangential.
@GeofCox Then, not even photovoltaic panels are the answer, as their yield is lower too with high temperature.
Every power conversion has an efficiency ratio, and the additional power needed goes into that, it's just physics.
@GeofCox Those power stations use river water to cool them not seawater as British ones do. They were turned off this time because of the river temperature and they didn’t want to increase it but last year turned off as rivers dried up.
It is. Temporary shutdown in extreme temperatures doesn't take away all the benefits to fight the climate breakdown, for example the low carbon energy it provides when it's running.
Building nuclear to replace fossil fuels, both in power plants but also to provide energy to replace fossil fuels in industries or vehicles, is a good way to reduce GhG emissions.
Several replies have made this point, and I have read some environmentalist making the same case - eg. George Monbiot.
However, I doubt it. It's a static analysis - it doesn't take into account the scale of investment in nuclear development or potential costs of dealing with accidents and storage, let along the full SROI, compared with what that same value put into renewables, and moreover into reducing energy use, would produce.
@GeofCox
There's a deep misunderstanding here. De need to decrease energy use.
And one of the key ways to achieve that is to increase electricity use. Replacing inefficient thermal processes with efficient electrical ones.
@GeofCox @vitaaliveli >> However, I doubt it. It's a static analysis - it doesn't take into account the scale of investment in nuclear development or potential costs of dealing with accidents and storage,
I have good news for you! Decarbonization and addressing the climate crisis will be expensive with or without nuclear. Also most spent fuel is recyclable.
To me it seems that those things are well taken in consideration, and due to scale of fossil fuel use, the lone reduction of energy use or only setting value to renewables wouldn't be enough.
The need and use of energy on a system level are more than only numbers on an excel sheet, where putting value to one thing provides a simple result.
And even if the climate crisis could be avoided with only renewables and reduction of energy use, the original post is still incorrect.
@GeofCox it was in the 60s, when france started building nuclear power 65 years ago.
If other countries followed suite instead of increasing their reliance on fossil fuels, those power stations would still be operational today.
@GeofCox It could’ve been, if it wasn’t too late. Now the cooling towers are too inefficient in the hottest weather.
'Cooling towers' is an euphemism for energy-wasting arrangements, isn't it ?
@GeofCox
Ooch? Nicht klimarestistent?
@GeofCox How ironic...
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
