Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game
by spullara on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @02:27AM
(#38274179)
Yes. If you care more about warm water over killing people, carbon emissions and pollution.
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game
by fodkodrasz on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @03:18AM
(#38274455)
Killing wildlife would be okay? Wow we saved some carbon emission (so it can wasted somewhere else...) and saved some lives (i don't see the connection you are implying), so now we can live in a barren land with plenty energy. (And this goes for hydro especially, and somewhat for solar and wind as well, all have environmental impacts, which must be taken into acount and sensible compromises need to be made)
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game
by mpweiher on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @03:04AM
(#38274384)
Nope.
This affects all thermal plants, it has nothing to do with nuclear.
And as the parent pointed out, it only affects plants where you cheap out and skip building the otherwise required cooling towers.
So it’s trivially solvable: build cooling towers.
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game
by fodkodrasz on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @03:15AM
(#38274440)
They can, if they are designed and built for those weather conditions in mind. Cooling towers are more expensive but could work in the mentioned case.
So what you're saying is, nuke plants can operate in any weather if you give zero fucks about how they affect nature..?