3 ms·

>Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes. What on earth are you talking about?

Arodex 4mo ago
Slight hyperbole, but nuclear reactors in Switzerland and France shut down more and more often because the water needed to cool them down is already too hot: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-adaptation/beznau-nuclear-power-plant-shuts-down-one-of-its-reactors-due-to-the-heat/89617209 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-adaptation/beznau-nucle... It is far from boiling, but these limits are there to avoid killing all life in the rivers.
- s1artibartfast 4mo ago
  I think it would be more accurate to say "avoid killing the most vulnerable life" crossing the line would not be the end of the world.
  - Arodex 4mo ago
    https://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam-roasts.amp https://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam...
    - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
      Relevance? That's not proof that we are teetering on the edge of that with a proposed nuclear reactor
- palata 4mo ago
  > It is far from boiling, but these limits are there to avoid killing all life in the rivers. Note though that those limits exist just like the emission limits for WiFi: it was a sane number when it was decided. It's not clear at all that raising the temperature a little more will "kill all life in the rivers". It would probably deserve some research.
  - Arodex 4mo ago
    No, it isn't a made-up number. We know pretty well when do fishes die en masse, as we have seen it in periods of extreme heat before. The research has been done and is how the limits have been defined.
    - palata 4mo ago
      Are you saying that the limit is set to exactly when fishes die en masse, so if we raise the limit by 0.0001 degree they will actually die en masse? Or did we choose an arbitrary number that is lower than that limit, with some arbitrary margin?
- Moldoteck 4mo ago
  The impact is 0.2% of annual power in France in units without cooling towers during a period of overcapacity. The statement is pure inflamatory nonsense

Slight hyperbole, but nuclear reactors in Switzerland and France shut down more and more often because the water needed to cool them down is already too hot: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-adaptation/beznau-nuclear-power-plant-shuts-down-one-of-its-reactors-due-to-the-heat/89617209 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-adaptation/beznau-nucle... It is far from boiling, but these limits are there to avoid killing all life in the rivers.

s1artibartfast 4mo ago
I think it would be more accurate to say "avoid killing the most vulnerable life" crossing the line would not be the end of the world.
- Arodex 4mo ago
  https://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam-roasts.amp https://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam...
  - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
    Relevance? That's not proof that we are teetering on the edge of that with a proposed nuclear reactor
palata 4mo ago
> It is far from boiling, but these limits are there to avoid killing all life in the rivers. Note though that those limits exist just like the emission limits for WiFi: it was a sane number when it was decided. It's not clear at all that raising the temperature a little more will "kill all life in the rivers". It would probably deserve some research.
- Arodex 4mo ago
  No, it isn't a made-up number. We know pretty well when do fishes die en masse, as we have seen it in periods of extreme heat before. The research has been done and is how the limits have been defined.
  - palata 4mo ago
    Are you saying that the limit is set to exactly when fishes die en masse, so if we raise the limit by 0.0001 degree they will actually die en masse? Or did we choose an arbitrary number that is lower than that limit, with some arbitrary margin?
Moldoteck 4mo ago
The impact is 0.2% of annual power in France in units without cooling towers during a period of overcapacity. The statement is pure inflamatory nonsense