[jcynix]

More than half of the French nuclear power plants are shut down due to maintenance right now, cf. https://m.dw.com/en/french-nuclear-plants-break-a-sweat-over...

And they have problems with excessive heat in the summer, because they cannot be properly cooled when water temperatures rise.

Doesn't look like a future solution but more of an future problem to me.

[Manuel_D]

> And they have problems with excessive heat in the summer, because they cannot be properly cooled when water temperatures rise.

Incorrect, the can still be cooled but rivers must be kept below 28 degrees [1]. Because apparently the fish in this one stretch of river are more important than global climate change. Perhaps the takeaway is that we should reconsider the acceptable impact on local environment given the impact on global environment. Similar deal with America lithium mines held up behind environmental review.

1. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threa...

[nosianu]

Incorrect.

It is not only the temperature. Did you miss the extreme lack of rainfall in much of Western Europe in the summer, including in France?

(Low river levels to affect French nuclear power generation) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-idUSKC...

Which is part of why they get too warm, there is less water in them so the impact of the plants is higher.

More generally, "France drought: Parched towns left short of drinking water": https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62436468

"France's Going Through Its Most Severe Drought Ever, PM Says" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-05/france-s-...

You are hand-waving away quite a few environmental issues too.

[Manuel_D]

Low river flow means more of the water goes into the heat exchanger, and leads to higher temperatures. It's still ultimately due to of heating the river, it's not that there's insufficient water to actually cool the reactor, just that there's insufficient water to cool the reactor while keeping river temperatures below 28 degrees. Say there's usually 100 cubic meters per second of flow, and the heat exchanger requires 10 cubic meters per second. If flow reduces to 30 cubic meters per second that's going to raise the temperature of the river but the plant can still be cooled if the people in charge decided reducing emissions is more important than heating a stretch of river.

Whatever environmental issues caused by heating a river is tiny comparison to global warming. If say I'm handwaving environmental issues, yet you neglect to specify what I'm overlooking. If you have reasons to think that heating a river is more important than averting climate catastrophe, I'm all ears.

And lastly, plenty of nuclear power plants are cooled by ocean water, or by wastewater [1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_...