@hadon @tante Protecting the biodiversity is great. But the result is the same: The major power source will have to reduce output and probably cut of electricity for somehow less important consumer - in midst of a heat wave.

Or they’d trash the limits - and the fauna and flora -, because putting more heat into the ecosystem in the midst of an environmentally stressful heat wave would cause even more damage.

But there’s also a technical limit. The cooling system has a minimum necessary temperature difference, determined by the amount of heat it must convey, the capacity of the pipes and pumps and the amount of water available. The hotter the intake water, the more water is needed for the same amount of heat. Roughly: Cooling is a relation of amount of water : temperature difference : time.

If the rivers are too warm and_or there’s not enough water and_or the pipes and pumps are not big enough, the system can’t get rid of enough heat and the plant has to reduce output.

So, the risk (and days) of power outages will rise with increasing temperatures; see climate stripes. And many rivers will have increasingly less water because of less snow in the mountains in winter. Human made climate change at work.

Now, what will you do? Trash the temperature limits and „bouillabaisse“ the rivers? Build larger cooling systems? Get a lot more cooling water from -ah- where-ever?

Or invest in the cheapest source of electric power generation like the rest of the world, which is above all neutral to earths heat system, produces no extremely dangerous waste (which nobody knows where to store safely for a million years), etc?

Now, should we begin talking about the age of the NPPs in France? About the immense costs of nuclear power that could never compete to market prices, always needed hidden state funding and price guaranties (i.e. tax payers money…), and is now way off compared to PV and wind power?

Read the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, worldnuclearreport.org/World-N… The chart on page 371. Or if you don’t believe them, read the same conclusions at Lazard, an international investment bank. As of now, nuclear is an economical and environmental disaster. The single reason to do it from the beginning till now despite all rational reasoning was access to nuclear weapons.

OTOH, solar plus storage is now cheaper, climate neutral, produces much less waste (which is handable) and is decentralized, therefore providing more stable power supply during increasing numbers of natural disasters (heavy rain, etc). Plus: It’s way faster to install per GW than nuclear.

(((