Not sure if joking or just ignorance? Both?

1. The nuclear capacity losses are because of environmental regulations, not because of inherent issues with nuclear.
   • Regulations restrict discharge of cooled water above 30°C into waterways, and they are responsible for the riverway temperature downstream of them. Since the waterways are warmer during a heat wave and the nuclear plant is responsible for the temperature of that waterway, they cannot discharge as much warm water into that waterway.
2. Solar doesn't work at night, and sufficiently scalable energy storage technology doesn't yet exist.
3. Solar loses considerable capacity as ambient temperature increases. At 40°C ambient, you're talking about a 15% or higher reduction in efficiency. Which would be HIGHER than the ~12% reduction in nuclear capacity Europe hmis seeing

Several nuclear reactors had to shut down because there was not enough water for cooling.

In France, Hungary, Romania

Thermal power plants have the same restrictions when it comes to cooling. They are hit just as hard.

I believe there is something of the kind, that the price of electricity just matches the highest production price, since you cannot differentiate which electricity comes from where in a grid. Si even if you have cheap renewable/nuclear energy, costs may rise if you have to use 'traditionnal' power plants. Im not sure of the details, i just heard the mechanism being explained once or twice.

Heat is the worst form of energy. It's super hard to extract energy at all from it. Basically, you can't extract energy from heat itself, you can only extract it through the process of heating something up. So you always need a cold component that gets heated up and a hot component that does the heating.

Without a cold component, you can't extract energy from heat.

This would work in winter and there are already heat pumps that use river water. Those are utility scale installations, though, so they don't just pop up overnight. And they'll be pretty useless in summer, when the air is hotter than the water.

Not if they don't already have the infrastructure in place. Remember that these power stations were built 30 odd years ago. No one expected climate change to get this bad this quickly even in the most pessimistic of models.

Thermoelectric is hilariously inefficient, so you can't really use it for electricity production, once it's served its purpose of turning the turbines.

What you can do with spill heat is to reuse it in district heating networks to provide hot water. And heating, of course, but there's no use for that during heat waves

"why don't we start by building a nuclear repository in your region" really isn't the own you think it is? Like sure? I genuinely do not think that would be a problem for my life at all

Nuclear energy is the most energy dense form of power generation on the planet, and nothing else comes close. When fuel rods are "expended" taken out of a reactor after their 2 year cycle for the first time ~95% of the energy still remains in the rod. Chemical reprocessing can filter out the decay products and put the fissionable or fertile materials back into production.

Additionally, nuclear is one of the safest sources of power production on the planet. Disasters have occurred at places like Chornobyl, fukushima, and three mile island. And there's a reason we don't build reactors like that anymore. Every time an incident has occurred the rules for this power generation have been updated to ensure that such an incident can't happen again.

As far as building a nuclear repository in my region? We are. We are are standing in the beginning of the next golden age of nuclear power.

While wind and solar are good to have for redundancy and diversity of power generation, they cannot change their generation ability easily at any point of day, during any weather conditions, regardless of external factors.

Nuclear fission is the current cleanest way of generating on demand power, assuming you aren't able to build a water based powerplant. If done correctly they can be built in such a way that they inherently fail in a state that renders them inert. I'm not all too familiar with the process, but that last time I looked, with proper refining of spent fuel, the waste was 10% or less than the original fissionable material.

As this comment (https://feddit.org/comment/14419698) says

In France, Hungary, Romania Nuclear Plants have shut down due to concern over ecological impact or not enough water to cool the plant

They do. What happens is that either water levels drop sufficiently enough or the temperature of the water in the rivers that they're drawing from rises to a point that it cannot provide sufficient cooling so they have to turn down or turn off the reactor.