Power stations can also adapt to a changing climate

The flow rates of some major rivers, which are particularly low this summer due to extreme weather conditions, are causing a range of problems across Europe, starting with the agricultural sector. This also affects energy production, particularly hydroelectric power. Low flow rates mean less water passing through the turbines and therefore less electricity generated. However, there is also an impact on thermal power stations. All such stations require the condenser downstream of the turbine to be cooled using river or seawater, which is drawn from and returned to its source, having been heated by a few degrees (at Caorso, never more than 3 degrees, according to the records); in the absence of a watercourse with sufficient flow, power stations built inland can be cooled using evaporative cooling towers, which utilise a closed-loop water system; a small proportion of this water evaporates, only to return to the ground as rain after a few weeks. Hybrid systems are also possible. To cite just a few examples, in Slovakia, the 940 MW Bohunice and 1,380 MW Mochovce nuclear power stations both use four closed-circuit cooling towers; in Italy, the Trino 2 nuclear power station – part of the national energy plan that was subsequently scrapped following the 1987 referendum, although located along the River Po – was designed to include cooling towers; finally, cooling towers are used in several Italian geothermal power stations.

It is, however, a fact that there are currently several hundred open-cycle thermal power stations in the European Union cooled by water from major rivers, of which just over 20 are nuclear (France, with 13 power stations along its major rivers, has the highest number). But – for better or worse – the decline in output from these nuclear plants dominates the headlines. In reality, according to Energy-chart, the website maintained by the German Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Research, in July 2025, electricity demand in the European Union was 3 per cent higher than in July 2025, partly due to the high use of air conditioning. At the same time, the reduced flow of rivers had the most significant impact on hydroelectric generation, which fell by 23 per cent compared with July 2025, followed by coal and other fossil fuel generation, which was down by 6 per cent; nuclear generation, by contrast, was only 2 per cent lower than in July 2025. As for gas-fired generation, it actually increased by 7 per cent.

In short, the issue of climate change is extremely serious. Over the last 200 years, the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere has risen by 50 per cent above the highest level ever recorded in the preceding 800,000 years. And CO₂ has a very long atmospheric lifetime: it will take hundreds of years to bring concentrations back to levels close to those of the pre-industrial era. So, there is no point in harbouring illusions: even if, by some miracle, we were to reduce global emissions to zero tonight (not just the 7 per cent of the European Union), the extreme weather events we are currently experiencing – from summer droughts to autumn floods – would persist for several centuries. So, first and foremost, we must invest in adapting all our infrastructure. This includes the cooling systems of our thermal power stations. And it will require a mountain of money. All the more reason, then, to pursue emissions reductions at the lowest possible cost. So, enough of these ridiculous ideological prejudices: we need nuclear power immediately as part of an optimal electricity mix alongside hydro, solar and wind power.