Nope. I denied that this is in any way a problem of nuclear power, which is what you implied. It is not. Cooling is a problem of all thermal plants, and solved for all thermal plants by cooling towers.
This isn't that hard.
And where did I "praise them" for building power plants without cooling towers? You gotta stop making stuff up, really.
> At least not without raising river temperatures to a point where the fish get killed.
Reference for "killing fish". Or are you making things up again?
> And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers
I consider this a positive vote. But fine. If you didn't agree with the decision, it doesn't make a difference to the discussion. And when I was speaking about cooling problems, it was specifically about the French reactors. No where I implied that this is a fundamental problem to nuclear power. It is, however a problem of many current nuclear reactors. Never mention that of course cooling towers also require a lot of water that needs to be provide. Which might face the same problems as the river-based cooling.
With respect to the fish: basic biology. The normal limit for water temperature is like 25 degrees which is quite a lot for european rivers. Fish are very sensitive to the water temperature as high temperature reduces the oxygene content of water. Which is why there are often mass death of fishes in the summer in some places quite naturally. You cannot raise the water temperature much or you will do huge harm to those ecological systems. That is, why those limits exist. Note: the plants probably are not happy about too high temperatures either, but they won't quickly die from lack of oxygene.
So you massively interpret (and misinterpret) what I write and then, purely on the basis of your interpretation, accuse my of lying. Precious.
You might want to look up what a "lie" is.
> And when I was speaking about cooling problems, it was specifically about the French reactors.
And when I responded, I was specific about this not being a problem with nuclear reactors in general because we know how to build cooling towers.
And yet you accuse me of lying.
> With respect to the fish: basic biology. [...]
OK, so you have nothing but generalities and platitudes, thanks for confirming.
Yes, when water gets too hot, fish die. You need to be bit more specific than that. For example when the water we use to boil a fish (I prefer fried) is at a good 100ºC, that kills fish.
I have some doubts that the nuclear power plants raised the temperatures of the rivers to 100ºC.
To be relevant, you would have to have some precise figure as to what the official limits are, what the temperatures when fish (which types of fish?) actually start getting affected and how much, what temperatures the plants emit and how much those temperatures raise the temperature of the river.
And of course, all you actually have is more slander and denouncements. As usual.
"The country is part of the deregulated Nordic electricity system which faces shortages, especially in any dry years, when hydroelectric generation is curtailed. Finland is very short of power until Olkiluoto 3 is commissioned. Over 2009-2011 some two-thirds of imported electricity came from Russia, but this has decreased considerably since the completion of the Fenno-Skan 2800 MW HVDC link with Sweden."
No I am not. And please stop it with the personal attacks.
It is non-issue for nuclear. Because. We. Know. How. To. Build. Cooling. Towers.
If you cheap out and don't build a cooling tower, heat can become an issue.
If you build a car with an insufficient radiator, heat can also become an issue.
This is not an issue with cars in general, this is an issue with having a radiator that is too small. Because we know how to build cars that have large enough radiators.
And no, you did not write that what I wrote "reads like" right wing propaganda. You wrote that I was "repeating right wing propaganda". Ergo a right wing propagandist, ergo a nazi. Or someone who reads and listens to right wing propaganda and repeats it. Which is probably worse, because stupid and still a nazi.
Wrt. Finland: they hadn't even decided what type of reactor to build for Block 4, and due to the "special operation" those plans are now being given new priority, but not urgency (not needed yet).
And, if I read you correctly, you consider a power plant delivering lots of power a problem. Whatever. For a country that size, I personally also would have chosen a larger number of smaller reactors rather than one huge one. But that's their choice.