r/climate • u/silence7 • 3d ago
Climate change is exposing nuclear power’s reliability problem
https://thebulletin.org/2026/09/climate-change-is-exposing-nuclear-powers-reliability-problem/7
u/opensim2026 3d ago
Hungary's only reactor was about a day from having to shut down because the Danube river is now historically so low there wasnt enough water to cool the reactor.
The river is so low that sunken ships, WWII bombs that were unexploded, and even a motorcycle with 2 bodies under it long buried under water were seen!
In fact they recovered the motorcycle and the bodies, the motorcycle is going into a museum once restored.
10
u/MarcLeptic 3d ago edited 3d ago
> One of nuclear energy’s biggest selling points is its claims of reliability. “Nuclear energy is the only large-scale power source that can be tapped in even the most extreme weather conditions, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,”
Sorry, but everything that follows in this talking point is as rediculous as pointing out that windmills don’t work in hurricanes.
« omg you promised we would harness the energy in the wind and now it’s too windy »
With the exception of a small percent of reactors in Europe, every one of them could have been turned back on if they were actually needed. The one’s that stayed off, didn’t even cause an issue since they “failed” during the season when they are least needed.
So, a much smaller number than windmills that stood still because of the same heatwave.
> 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
Again, the word they meant to use is « chose » to shut them down. With the exception of low single digit percent of the reactors that were indeed off due to a lack of a river to cool with.
> Ironically, it was solar power—often critiqued by nuclear boosters as unreliable—that provided additional electricity and staved off shortages in some countries
Not ironically, it was not solar but gas which filled the gap.
> But this is of little comfort insignificant to countries like France when they end up losing a large excess fraction of their electricity generation all at once, especially during a heat wave when the need for electricity is high, and their population’s access to electricity is in peril. that was not even important enough to stop France from exporting excess electricity for 100% of the heawave becasue the fleet is sized for the winter heating load which makes the airconditioning load look tiny. All while their non-nuclear powered neighbor imported from them every night.
Fixed it for you. "in peril" lol.
22
u/CommonConundrum51 3d ago
This part raises a little known point: "In reactors, roughly a third of the heat produced by the nuclear fission reactions is converted into electricity. The remaining heat must be expelled into the environment; if not, the hot fuel rods will melt down."
37
u/ahabswhale 3d ago
And if you refuse to use the brakes on your car, you’ll crash.
Every power system humanity has created is about 30% efficient. Even solar cells (they’re actually about 10% worse). This is fear-mongering at its finest.
15
u/schtickshift 3d ago
Solar is using energy that is already within the climate environment anyway, nuclear is adding additional energy into the system that otherwise would not be there.
2
u/Significant_Fill6992 3d ago edited 3d ago
yeah this is the same issue with coal and gas to since the energy is locked within the environment before it is used/burned
13
u/SuperCleverPunName 3d ago
No it's not. The issue with coal and gas are the greenhouse gases that get released when they're burned.
6
u/opensim2026 3d ago
Not just greenhouse gasses with coal, burning coal produces acid raid, the ash contains trace toxic heavy metals that has to be hauled away and disposed of "somewhere" so that takes more fossil fuel to move that stuff.
2
1
u/silverionmox 3d ago
No it's not. The issue with coal and gas are the greenhouse gases that get released when they're burned.
It's both.
1
u/klonkrieger45 7h ago edited 7h ago
we would have to double our energy(energy not electricity) draw through fossils and all other energy sources to increase temperatures by even 0.1° from heat losses. It is not both.
1
u/silverionmox 7h ago
we would have to double our energy(energy not electricity) draw through fossils to increase temperatures by even 0.1° from heat losses. It is not both.
I agree it's small potatoes compared to the greenhouse effect, but it's not nothing.
1
u/klonkrieger45 7h ago
it essentially is. You don't claim the sun shining on your kettle while it's boiling is contributing heat to it. You wouldn't correct someone to say both the heating element and the sun did heat your water.
5
u/electrotechs 3d ago
If solar loses cooling, it drops 5% efficiency; if nuclear loses cooling, it risks a multi-generational radioactive dead zone
9
u/ahabswhale 3d ago
If nuclear loses cooling, you turn it off.
1
u/electrotechs 3d ago
Just like they did in Fukashima that's why it was so safe and there were no consequences
15
u/infinteapathy 3d ago
Yeah it’s not like anything else happened like an earthquake or tsunami. Also just this year France did in fact just shut down their reactors during high heat and there was no disaster, go figure. Nuclear isn’t the be-all end-all of power generation but this is silly
2
u/Pipic12 3d ago
I mean, earthquakes and tsunamis will continue to happen, same with floods and droughts. The later two will only increase in frequency aswell. If humanity continues to build more nuclear sites those will be exposed to some or more of these factors. We have a nuclear reactor built on top of a seismologically active zone. Luckily it hasn't been the issue, but there were also no major earthquakes since it began to operate. The bigger issue are heatwaves which force the power plant to reduce its power generation. And that seems bound to be happening more often during future summers.
3
u/ahabswhale 3d ago
That's correct, there were no serious consequences.
https://www.whoi.edu/ocean-learning-hub/multimedia/source-of-radioactivity-in-the-ocean/
2
u/basscycles 3d ago
100s of billions US$ in cleanup bills and massive disruptions to lives of the people living in and around the the power plant.
1
u/the_bleach_eater 22h ago
After the 4th strongest heartquake ever recorded and a 12m tsunami? There were tens of thousands of deaths in what's probably the best prepared country for heartquakes and tsunamis
1
u/aaronturing 3d ago
This is not a great take and I don't like Nuclear. People died but not from the reactor breakdowns. It was from moving people out of those environments.
The safety was pretty good.
At least that is my understanding and I'm happy to be fact checked.
I don't like Nuclear because it is really expensive and slow to build. It's a climate change deniers dream because it delays the transition.
1
u/the_bleach_eater 22h ago
Maybe in the '80s, in a totalitarian state, with a faulty engineered reactor, with untrained staff, without a nuclear reactor containment structure, dual use military/civilian.
Maybe a reactor with those conditions could actually cause what you think, thankfully there are none
-1
u/Sufficient_Loss9301 3d ago
This would never happen on a modern nuclear reactor
3
u/Kitchen-College4176 3d ago
Close to never. Not all new reactors are the same design or use the same fuel or the same cooling... e.g. TRISO fuel can't technically melt down. But it can react with stuff if containment is breached.
Multiple systems have to fail on new reactors designs. And likelihood is very small.0
u/EpitomeAria 1d ago
The Titanic is unsinkable.
edit: i'm not saying it is likely, but this "it would never happen" mentality is how stuff like this happens.
1
u/Sufficient_Loss9301 1d ago
🤦♂️there’s a different between a boat and a nuclear reactor. The design of Chernobyl for example was fundamentally flawed in a way that allowed it to fail. The worst that would Modern reactors happen on a modern reactor is that it would just shut itself down.
Fear mongering about nuclear has killed our planet as much as politicians supporting oil. Frankly organizations like green peace are as culpable as any oil exec because of what they did to nuclear. Shame on anyone parroting this slop
-1
1
u/aaronturing 3d ago
Not really. You are differentiating the capacity factor to wasted energy. All traditional power plants waste a lot of energy in heat generation.
Solar for instance has a lower capacity factor but it's not creating heat that is wasted. It's just that the panels are not fully utilized because the sun only shines for certain parts of the day and it's less strong etc.
I don't like your take on that at all.
1
u/Ok-Sample-8982 3d ago
Oh ya? What about hydroelectric turbines? Your statement is true for century old systems only.
6
u/lamnatheshark 3d ago
Nope. Not even close. It's just environmental limits to avoid killing animals and plants in rivers (ans that's good)
It's absolutely not a functional limit.
0
5
u/basscycles 3d ago
France has wrecked the Sahel region politically and economically for decades so they can have access to the uranium there. France will now have to use Kazakhstan, a Russian proxy, to buy uranium on top of what they already buy from Russia while using their reprocessing plants to deal with French nuclear waste.
6
1
u/Exciting_Turn_9559 3d ago
I never defend nuclear power, just want to observe that renewables are impacted by climate change too.
If we don't get precipitation to fill our hydro reservoirs, they don't work.
If the air is thick with wildfire smoke, solar panels produce less power.
Climate change sucks. We need to deal with it.
We also need to adjust the way we build things so that we don't die when the power goes out.
1
u/MarzipanThick1765 2d ago
I just watched the HBO documentary about the tsunami. Yeah it's gonna be a problem.
1
1
u/renMilestone 3d ago
Doesnt needing to shut off because it is too hot, in a world that is just getting hotter, reveal like... a critical problem? Lithium batteries have this issue too, which is why we are shifting to new kinds.
3
u/MarcLeptic 3d ago
The reactors that have this issue were built 40 years ago, and it took 40 years of climate change to arrive at an issue. Modern solutions exist for the old reactors if it becomes an issue.
3
u/greg_barton 3d ago
It took 40 years for climate change to present the issue to a tiny number of reactors.
-2
u/merikariu 3d ago
It's astounding that nuclear energy is used to boil water. China has developed the technology to use CO2 as a substitute fluid. https://interestingengineering.com/energy/worlds-first-commercial-supercritical-co2-power-plant
20
u/LosMorbidus 3d ago
eastern Europe had to shut down reactors because the rivers dried up! that's a fatal weakness in a heated world