Slight hyperbole, but nuclear reactors in Switzerland and France shut down more and more often because the water needed to cool them down is already too hot:

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-adaptation/beznau-nucle...

It is far from boiling, but these limits are there to avoid killing all life in the rivers.

> It is far from boiling, but these limits are there to avoid killing all life in the rivers.

Note though that those limits exist just like the emission limits for WiFi: it was a sane number when it was decided. It's not clear at all that raising the temperature a little more will "kill all life in the rivers". It would probably deserve some research.

No, it isn't a made-up number. We know pretty well when do fishes die en masse, as we have seen it in periods of extreme heat before. The research has been done and is how the limits have been defined.

Are you saying that the limit is set to exactly when fishes die en masse, so if we raise the limit by 0.0001 degree they will actually die en masse?

Or did we choose an arbitrary number that is lower than that limit, with some arbitrary margin?

The impact is 0.2% of annual power in France in units without cooling towers during a period of overcapacity. The statement is pure inflamatory nonsense

I think it would be more accurate to say "avoid killing the most vulnerable life" crossing the line would not be the end of the world.

Relevance? That's not proof that we are teetering on the edge of that with a proposed nuclear reactor