No, it is exposing the problem with open loop water cooling of anything.
Closed loop/forced still works, it will just be slightly less efficient in higher temperatures. So is solar is higher temperatures.
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2026
41 points (91.8% liked)
Climate
8966 readers
250 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
For nuclear power plants to be reliable, they need operating conditions to be stable. With climate change intensifying by the year, one cannot expect predictability, control, and stability.
This is true for our entire society. It's why climate change is going to hurt.
At this point, we should be building the fuck out of low-carbon power sources. With high cost, relatively risky technologies like nuclear, we need to build with the expectation that conditions are going to get much worse.
Over the next few months, several countries in Europe had to shut down nuclear plants because of hot weather and drought—proving that nuclear power does, indeed, care about the weather.
Definitely an issue.
However IMO, this is not something that new plants cannot be engineered to overcome. Many of the plants in service today were built before climate change entered the public consciousness, before we had record of our waterways completely drying up.
That's not to say that addressing this makes nuclear perfect, its not. This is an issue that must be addressed by new construction. The future is going to be tough no matter what, nuclear can still ease that pain if used when it makes sense, where it makes sense, and in conjunction w abundant renewable power and storage.
LFTR reactors for the win
it’s extremely expensive to set up & almost eternally earth-toxic after that
Yes, that is the argument coal companies paid "environmentalists" to make, and thanks to 40 years of stalled nuclear development, we have killed the planet.
It is extremely expensive to set up because we can't standardize it due to lawsuits. The hope is small modular reactors and new generations will change that. As we safely extend the lifespan of nuclear power plants, the upfront costs are being amortized over longer and longer periods making them cheaper.
It is not eternally earth toxic. More responsible countries than the United States recycle spent nuclear fuel. 95% of spent fuel was reused. What remains are highly radioactive fission products with short half-lives (30 years) which are safe after a few decay rounds, and long half-life but low radioactive actinides where the main concern is that you don't ingest them.
For a heavily nuclear powered country like France, the total waste produced from the beginning of its nuclear power program until today that cannot be recycled would cover one football field a few feet deep. France also has the lowest CO2 equivalent per capita emissions from its energy sector of any developed nation on Earth.
The entire planet is cooking. Hundreds of thousands will start to die annually. We must educate ourselves about solutions and implement every last one that works. Nuclear power has the lowest death rate of any power source per kilowatt hour generated. Please learn about it.