Is it a good idea to put floating and underground nuclear power plants in ocean water that is already heating up, when these plants need large amounts of water for cooling? Even non-nuclear inland power plants are affected by drought and lack of usable water.
During a recent heat waves, a power plant in Illinois had to shut down because it was overheating due to its cooling water intake pipe being blocked with dead fish killed by low water levels.
They were delicious, by the way.
And then there was the nuclear power plant in Connecticut that had to shut down because it was overheating because cooling water from the Long Island Sound was too hot.
No dead fish, but no meltdown, so who's complaining?
So does that mean we're a planet that's increasingly in hot water?
Some scientists seem to think so, and some of the scientists who think so, think that nuclear power is an answer, and some of the scientists who think that think that the best place to put a new generation of nuclear power plants is in the oceans that are already getting warmer.
That'll work, right?
The French plan to put underwater nuke plants in the English Channel. The French are not alone in the underwater nuke thing. The Russians are into it, too, only their nukes float. This floating Russian nuke plant uses a pair of 70 MW reactors originally designed for submarines.
Russian and French nuclear power, floating or submerged, wherever there's water.
Global warming has its benefits, even if you don't believe in it -- it's done wonders for Vermont weather.