this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
132 points (97.8% liked)

World News

38810 readers
2884 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Water-rich Switzerland controls Western Europe’s taps — and wants it to stay that way. Its drought-ridden neighbors are getting nervous.

At the western edge of Lake Geneva, where the mighty Rhône river squeezes through a narrow dam, a blunder of French diplomacy is carved into stone for all to see

The inscription, mounted on the walls of an old industrial building, commemorates the 1884 accord between three Swiss cantons that have regulated the water levels of this vast Alpine lake ever since. It does not mention France — even though some 40 percent of the lake is French territory. 

“France, for some reason, wasn’t part of the contract,” said Jérôme Barras as he unlocked a gate below the epigraph to inspect a hydropower plant under the dam he has managed for more than a decade. 

When the agreement was renewed and a new dam was built a century later, Paris still wasn’t interested. 

The French government now regrets that.

And France has suddenly realized it can’t control that tap as it battles water shortages, destructive droughts and baking heat.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's possible to drastically reduce how much cooling water a nuclear power plant requires by taking a little water out and fully evaporating it, rather than running a lot of water in and heating up the whole river a little bit.

Ah yes. Great idea. That water wouldn't influence the local climate at all, right?

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You’re concerned about a cooling tower that literally just evaporates water? You realize those aren’t nuclear specific?

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

How much water? What effects will have on the river and the local water? And yes, these are questions one needs to be concerned about in any project of this size.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

These guys say that there hasn't been a much research on microclimate effects since the 1970s, though they did look at it, and found that it slightly increases crop yields in the area in the US by increasing precipitation a bit.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-and-applied-economics/article/effect-of-nuclear-power-plants-on-local-crop-yields/5CE7792374CCEF73CCBA9FC39BF131F6

The growing prevalence of clean energy raises the question of possible associated externalities. This article studies the effects of nuclear power plant development (and, as a result, the increased amount of water in the atmosphere from evaporative cooling systems) on nearby crop yields and finds that an average nuclear power plant increases local soybean yields by 2 and corn yields by 1 percent. Considering the low elasticity of demand for these crops, the yield increases translate to annual net benefits of $229 million (2020 US dollars) – $317 million in losses to farmers and $546 million in benefits to consumers.