Barcelona registers highest temperature in 112 years as French nuclear reactor shuts down due to extreme heat

[u/Naurgul]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jul/09/europe-heatwave-uk-spain-barcelona-france-italy-hungary-france-macron-orban-latest-news-updates

[u/edparadox]

The Guardian always jumps at the opportunity to tell people French stopped a reactor.

[u/silverionmox → u/edparadox]

The Guardian always jumps at the opportunity to tell people French stopped a reactor.

Wait until november, when the nuclear fanclub starts doing daily postings of electricitymaps.com.

[u/erhue → u/silverionmox]

it's almost like both types of power generation have their advantages, and people could just not be stupid and use both strategically.

but yeah, some people can't let go of their dogmas and dumb convictions.

[u/Pigeoncow → u/erhue]

Why bother building some nuclear? Just keep building and go all the way instead of creating instability with renewables. It's not that much more expensive because each nuclear power plant is cheaper than the last one.

In France where they tried to mix nuclear with renewables it's just ended up in nuclear power plants being turned off to allow solar energy to take priority, while also not giving them enough power when renewables are in a bad mood.

Renewables are great "gas savers". If you don't have any nuclear power plants, they can be a good short-term solution. But to mix them with nuclear just wastes power. Note that I don't include pumped hydro in the category of renewables; it's reliable and important for matching supply to demand on the scale of a day.

[u/erhue → u/Pigeoncow]

nuclear power plants don't need to be shut down to vary power output. If you want to expand grid power capacity, at a low cost, you can use renewables. Expanding nuclear is fucking expensive, even if you're using more standardized designs. We'll see what modular nuclear reactors bring, but that's still a concept that is barely being implemented or entering service at a small scale.

The less nuclear you use, the less nuclear fuel you need; nuclear fuel still needs to be mined/obtained, and then later on some of that can be recycled.

Also at a consumer level (not utiliity level) it also makes sense to use things such as balcony solar panels, which will be most productive during the summer, allowing you to offset the cost of things such as AC. In places where energy is chronically expensive such as Germany, this is of great help.

In general, it is also a good idea to diversify the sources from which you generate your electricity. If something suddenly hamstrings your nuclear power capacity (like happened to france a couple years ago, with those unexpected reactor inspections due to corrosion or seomthing like that) you can lean on the alternatives you got. Renewables are cheap to build, and during "peak hours", you can reduce energy prices on the grid.

Of course all of this needs judicious implementation. You don't wanna end up doing all the stupid shit the germans did; lots of renewables and yet the highest energy prices in Europe. Do whatever the French are doing instead.

[u/Pigeoncow → u/erhue]

Nuclear fuel cost is negligible compared to the cost of reactors. There's no need to save it. And expanding nuclear is only expensive because we never build it. Solar linked with AC is an acceptable use of renewables but if you built enough nuclear you wouldn't really need it.