The river thing is a problem in the summer when there is less overall demand, in the winter it should be fine.
If this is really a long term issue more air cooling could be installed.
> We didn't even start talking about nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste is basically a non issue anti-nuclear people bring up when they don't have any serious arguments.
Anybody that seriously looks into it understand that this isn't really that big of a problem.
> Germany tried to find a good place for that for decades without luck and most containers start to leak after a couple of years already.
This is another one of these basically fake issue that anti-nuclear people use to spread panic. But of course the reality is zero people have died or been hurt because of this. Even under worst case condition, like delusional fantasy of anti-nuclear people the idea that in the next 1000 years anybody gets hurt because of this is very low.
Germany were idiots in the 70s and instead of just storing low-level waste in a easy to manage placed they threw it in a unstable mine. Not very smart but also not really that big a deal or that dangerous.
So yeah if that the worst thing you can bring up against nuclear I'm not impressed. And again this is an issue because people did dumb shit in the 70s with all kinds of waste from the 50/60s. It has nothing to do with modern nuclear power.
> If this is really a long term issue more air cooling could be installed.
if this is actually possible, nobody knows. I never heard anyone suggesting it
> nuclear waste is basically a non issue anti-nuclear people bring up when they don't have any serious arguments.
so what about the Hanford Nuclear Reservation leakage, Chernobyl, Fukushima. In fukushima they just put their waste water back into the ocean, it will just diluted right?
> This is another one of these basically fake issue that anti-nuclear people use to spread panic.
how is it spreading panic when there're actual concerns and evidence about the problems caused by nuclear. We can use nuclear power plants but everyone should be aware of the issues that come with it and not argue based on ideaology. Calling it a none-issue and delusional fantasies of anti-nuclear people without giving arguments doesn't give much confidence in the claims you make.
If this is really a long term issue more air cooling could be installed.
> We didn't even start talking about nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste is basically a non issue anti-nuclear people bring up when they don't have any serious arguments.
Anybody that seriously looks into it understand that this isn't really that big of a problem.
> Germany tried to find a good place for that for decades without luck and most containers start to leak after a couple of years already.
This is another one of these basically fake issue that anti-nuclear people use to spread panic. But of course the reality is zero people have died or been hurt because of this. Even under worst case condition, like delusional fantasy of anti-nuclear people the idea that in the next 1000 years anybody gets hurt because of this is very low.
Germany were idiots in the 70s and instead of just storing low-level waste in a easy to manage placed they threw it in a unstable mine. Not very smart but also not really that big a deal or that dangerous.
So yeah if that the worst thing you can bring up against nuclear I'm not impressed. And again this is an issue because people did dumb shit in the 70s with all kinds of waste from the 50/60s. It has nothing to do with modern nuclear power.