Romania used explosives to clear the way for redirecting Danube water toward Cernavodă as heat and drought cut nuclear output when cooling demand peaked.
Good point. We forget (or at least I do) that nuclear power generation produces rejected heat just as any other thermal generation process does.
Meanwhile, a top comment in the WSJ is the climate change hoax. There should have been a moon-shot pivot to nuclear after the '72 oil crisis.
Resilience come first and foremost from good engineering.
Nuclear can be extraordinary resilient if operated right. If done right it can operate with very little water - unlike, say, hydro.
It was known for decades that water intake at Cernavodă is inaquate and corrective measures were already designed and planned - but never implemented.
The current issues are the results of neglect, not drought.
Good point. We forget (or at least I do) that nuclear power generation produces rejected heat just as any other thermal generation process does.
Meanwhile, a top comment in the WSJ is the climate change hoax. There should have been a moon-shot pivot to nuclear after the '72 oil crisis.
Resilience come first and foremost from good engineering.
Nuclear can be extraordinary resilient if operated right. If done right it can operate with very little water - unlike, say, hydro.
It was known for decades that water intake at Cernavodă is inaquate and corrective measures were already designed and planned - but never implemented.
The current issues are the results of neglect, not drought.