This is entirely an ecological and safety concern.
If for the sake or discussion we simplify cooling to four options:
1: just passing river water through a heat exchanger for cooling
2: ingesting river water, using it for cooling, then passing it through a cooling tower before returning it to the river
3: pass the water output from the cooling tower directly back in the cooling loop, only ingest enough water to replace evaporation
4: fully closed loop via direct heat exchange with air
Then 4 is not very viable. But a lot of nuclear plants are stuck at 1 or 2, and each step up the ladder would allow them to operate in worse conditions. This one seems to be at version one
https://www.dert.hu/hu/sajtoszoba/0/141 (in Hungarian, couldn't find an English source)
Then we could stop the nuclear plants when needed for cooling and maintenance
Well that's exactly what they did thanks to solar power provided by the rest of the grid, so your snark seems rather unwarranted.
Any new build can and will include cooling adapted to hotter conditions.
Iceland has geothermal, which is amazing, but won't help central Europe.
About 85 percent of the total primary energy supply in Iceland is derived from domestically produced renewable energy sources. Use of abundant hydroelectric and geothermal power has made Iceland the world's largest electricity producer per capita.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IcelandWhat works for Iceland works in few other places to the same degree (New Zealand, Yellowstone, places with thin crust and feisty caldera's).
There are some interesting spots here but it's generally enough through the country to do it everywhere.
Munich gets quite a lot of it's energy from geothermal sources
Oh come on.
There is simply NO safe level of fossil fuel use.
However, hopefully, they change the plans for (stalled project) Paks 2, because that would've used the same cooling system as the first one.
vrganj•2h ago
https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/07/13/france-shuts-do...
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hungarys-paks-nuclea...
We keep having folks here argue that nuclear, not renewables are the path to take to get rid of fossil fuels. I have strong doubts - it feels like that doesn't account for the sad realities of climate change.
cinntaile•2h ago
vrganj•1h ago
deepsummer•37m ago
oblio•35m ago
deepsummer•22m ago
emsign•12m ago
RandomLensman•7m ago
flr03•34m ago
emsign•19m ago
stefan_•34m ago
Cthulhu_•19m ago
Restoring river water levels can't be done through technical solutions though, they rely on the weather and we can't control that. The European river levels are largely influenced by inland rain, snowfall, and glacier forming/melting; snowfall and rain has been meagre this year, glaciers have been melting and receding for decades now.
emsign•16m ago
eecc•23m ago
At some point it will be the new normal.
Cthulhu_•21m ago
Every power source has their tradeoffs, and I don't think anyone is denying that.
What I do think is that people are making up arguments or statements that Other People have and call them out on it.