Belgium has dropped nuclear phaseout plans adopted over two decades ago. Previously, it had delayed the phaseout for 10 years over the energy uncertainty triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Belgium’s parliament on Thursday voted to drop the country’s planned nuclear phaseout.
In 2003, Belgium passed a law for the gradual phaseout of nuclear energy. The law stipulated that nuclear power plants were to be closed by 2025 at the latest, while prohibiting the construction of new reactors.
In 2022, Belgium delayed the phaseout by 10 years, with plans to run one reactor in each of its two plants as a backup due to energy uncertainty triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine.
What they ought to be doing is investing in thorium reactor development.
Good. More countries should realize the capability of nuclear power. Whilst it isn’t renewable, it’s much cleaner than fossil fuels
It’s a good baseload but it’s inflexible. We need more ways to take advantage of it at quiet times.
Electric car chargers are part of it. Maybe house batteries. We need our devices to be smarter about power and when they use it.
It’s also very expensive to build and run.
Article is wrong on a major point though:
They are not undoing the phase-out part (actually a cap on the active lifetime of a reactor), but lifting the ban on building any new reactors. There is no deal to maintain the currently active plants any longer than what the previous governments negotiated with Electrabel/Engie over and they are still poised to close qs planned
This change is here because the ban included medical/research reactors, such as the one in Mol that used to provide chemo-therapy products, which we are now buying abroad.
As for the other arguments usually found on this topic:
- Belgium lacks the space for a scaling-up of windmills, and with the control-components found in chinese transformers, (who have a 80% market share in solar) it would give the Chinese government the power to literally damage our infrastructure, or cause shutdowns like Spain & Portugal saw. All without leaving evidence behind, btw. So an energy reliance built on Chinese products is as dangerous as building it around a Russian gas pipeline.
- Nuclear power has a lower CO2 footprint per GW, lower injury & death toll, and isn’t even the top radiation pollution source. (That’s actually coal, with Wind a potential second if we had more data on Bayan Obo)
- While >90% of solar panels currently in use globally have no pre-determined disposal, Belgium does require a contribution to Recubel on sale, so their waste which can contain stuff like PFAS atleast won’t end up in a landfill. There is no national recycling plan for windmills as far as I could find.
- The largest cost of nuclear power is safety. Both reactor & waste. The largest gain is a massive amount of reliable electricity. Unfortunately, due to how global energy markets work, the profit has become unreliable (ironically in part due to solar/wind) and large nuclear plants are generally considered an economic loss. That’s why Engie doesn’t want to keep the nuclear plants open anymore, they make more money from “emergency capacity” subsidies not running gas power plants than actually producing electricity in Doel & Tihange. But if someone figures out a way, why would you stop them from innovating? Not to mention the law also banned any potential ‘safe’ methodin the future, like Thorium reactors, fission, …
- It’s still legal to build a coal plant in Belgium, the government only regulates safety & waste when you do. This law repeal puts nuclear power at the same level as all other sources. It is up to the experts at FANC to define what a safe nuclear plant is, and to investors if the think it’s worth the cost, be it financial, PR, or other.
as much as we all hate belgium for pretending to be a country, we should hate them for their rotten powerplants. the amount of people that “dislike” belgium is increasing fast in germany.
I mean, if the reactors are already built and have plenty of life left in them…
Thats actually one of the problems. Yes, there are 2 reactors in the country but they are so old, they needed replacement… In 2002.
Belgium doesnt have the money/wants to invest in a new reactor because that costs billions but really, really, really should…Still, this is a step in the right direction
TBF work was done to keep it sound until 2025 and it was possible to extend the operational life further (basically you can just keep throwing hundreds of millions at them every 10 years for a long time to come).
What’s fucked up is that in the last few years a bunch of maintenance wasn’t done because the government said “no for real though super pinky promise we’re not extending the contract again they will definitely be shut down in 2025 it’s the law”.
So now Electrabel/Engie is rightfully super pissed because this flip-flopping is going to cost us billions just to keep the existing reactors running. And they have zero guarantee the greens won’t come back into a government coalition in 2029 and fuck the schedule up again.
Ye but the efficiency and safety of a new reaction could save us millions a year. We need those new reactors to replace the current ones. Asap.
Engie is indeed right to complain, but should build new reactors, and they shouldve done it 10 years ago
This is the key question. Eventually reactors wear out and need substantial refitting to live longer, and you’re then working on a highly irradiated structure.
The UK hit this point with a number of reactors. Even though they had licenses to continue, reality struck and they had to be decommissioned. Of course, the reason for the extension of service was because no replacement plan was in effect. End result is the UK nuclear generation is slowly dying.
…and that chart is missing 9 years. It’s now 5.9GWe.
This stay, IMO, the big question mark. At which point does maintaining an aged machine is more expensive than building new one. Especially when 20 years are needed to build a new one (including 10 years of legal paperwork, trials and appeals)
Cracks in the pressure vessel? Nah, this’ll hold another two decades…
GOOD. BUILD MORE. The newer generations of nuclear plants can recycle their own waste and are basically meltdown proof. It’s a no brainer. Shit is literally alchemy magic.
For the haters: https://youtu.be/5WKQsr9v2C0
+120% cancer in children in the area…so worth it.
This is for the older plants. The newer plants are fundamentally different (Gen 3+). There are ways to mitigate these things.
in theory. yet show me one…
my numbers say sth. different
I don’t speak German. Generation 3+ only came into use in the West in the last 5-10 years. China has over 150 planned for a reason, watch the link I already provided. They are fundamentally built to avoid the accidents of the past. The standards set by the Chinese on this meet Western standards, hell, they are selling the tech to us.
-
Environmental impacts of Gen 3: https://scholar.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/api/records/9ca88a42-f3ec-47ff-bdf4-fe085a817713/file/0fa0df8ea85e422dc87b706749f77aa6578e7be0cce2b38b5ff2ffaad8c41809.pdf
-
A bit behind the development of safety: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors
More on China, because the YT link already covers this stuff:
Still (way) more expensive than just building cheap renewables.
Air and wind are inexpensive insofar as they have a low LCOE, but are intermittent, so require being coupled with energy storage, and that is not inexpensive.
If you’re talking hydropower or geothermal, then they don’t have the intermittency issue (well, hydro does, but to a far lesser degree), but both are subject to the geography of the area. They aren’t available to everyone.
EDIT: And in the case of hydropower, there are also some environmentalists unhappy about the impact on river systems, since dams inevitably have at least some impact on river ecosystems, even if you build those fish channels.
EDIT2: “Fishway” or “fish ladder”.
EDIT3: In fairness, for some uses, intermittency isn’t such a big issue. That is, you may have an industrial process that you can only run when energy is available. So, for example, the Netherlands used to do this (sans electricity) with their windpumps in the process of poldering. That’s not free — if you want your pumps to run only a third of the time on average, then you need triple the pumping capacity — but for some things like that, where the process is basically the pumping side of pumped hydrostorage, it might be cheaper than providing constant operation with a non-intermittent power source.
But for an awful lot of uses, people just want electricity to be available when they flip the switch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China
Ideally we’d be doing/improving on something like this where modern nuclear plants can make up for gaps in renewables.
Air and wind are inexpensive insofar as they have a low LCOE, but are intermittent, so require being coupled with energy storage, and that is not inexpensive.
First, AIR and wind?
Second, yes they are intermittent but that’s not an argument in favour of nuclear. Pairing intermittent sources and sources that need to run at full power 24/7 to be economic isn’t a good match.
Solar and wind, sorry.
Second, yes they are intermittent but that’s not an argument in favour of nuclear.
Sure it is. It’s just not an argument in favor of using nuclear as a peaking source to fill in the gaps for solar and wind intermittency.
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest. And easily scalable.
Are you retarded? how many sources of power that are dirtier can you come up with. then pause a moment and list the cleaner sources. then try counting again.
Well if we’re talking about lifetime carbon footprint, renewables. The drawbacks for nuclear are almost entirely political and economical, but that doesn’t make the technology irrelevant.
no. dead kids are not “political”… they are dead.
sorry that study is in german, but the author would have been killed in second world countries like the US for speaking out loud.
there is not one reactor on the planet that is safe or did not kill ppl. not one.
Did I miss something or are we moving the goalposts from dirty to hazardous?
The average operating age of nuclear plants in Germany was 30+ years old. Yes they’re not built to modern safety standards. Yes, operating with radioactive materials is more dangerous than not doing that. But they still ended with a minimal impact to climate change over their lifetime.
If you want sensational claims about energy saftey you can write a whole expose about working conditions in Xinjiang, which produces 45% of all of solar grade polysilicone. Are those deaths less important because they didn’t happen in your neighborhood?
So yes, it’s political because a handful of human deaths override an energy technology that is, mathematically, one of the best tools to save our planet. Throwing away nuclear energy because people can get preventable cancer is like throwing away wind energy because an aluminum blade can drop on your head.
Clean might be debatable, but scalable is just obviously wrong. There is nothing even close to solar and wind when it comes to scalability. When your goal is scalability, anything that takes more than 1-2 years per plant to set up is just worthless. We cant just wait another 20 years for nuclear to make a comeback at this point, its not an option.
Solar and wind aren’t scalable well. Try to increase power output, let’s say, x3. How well is it going? Building additional 2 reactors is completely straightforward.
We still have a lot of roofs that could have solar on them. Scaling up nuclear will deplete fuel mines faster because the isotopes that are legal due to arms treaties are pretty limited.
What? This is what generation capacity looks like in Germany. Solar has gone up 50x in the last 20 years, 2.7x in the last 10 years. We could keep scaling faster, but there is just no need.
We dont need more sources, we need more storage. We already have plenty of surplus solar/wind generation capacity that is being turned off because the grid is lacking storage. We really only need more storage and as you can see from this chart, that is whats happening. This year battery storage filled with solar and wind will probably supply more energy than nuclear did over a year at its peak.
Uh hu… so you are arguing, in good faith, that it’s easier(?), safer(?), cheaper(?), faster(?) to build deveral nuclear reactors than building a couple more wind- and solar parks?
Yes. Watt-comparable amounts, of course.
This is what actual delusion looks like lmao
Why the name calling? The guy is obviously wrong, but calling them delusional is not useful in any way. You’re only spoiling this community
Its neither actually, and it makes us dependent on foreign countries
Nuclear shills out in full force again today, eh?
Lemmy seems 100% astroturfed by pro-nuclear lobbyists.
Fun fact: Multiple people with opinions different than yours are not automatically astroturfers or lobbyists. Turns out, different people have different opinions which they share on an open platform. Inevitably they’re going to end up disagreeing with you.
Nuclear being less efficient and more expensive than renewables is not an opinion.
What do people mean by “less efficient” in these conversations? Energy generated is energy generated, the number one efficiency we should talk about is using less of it. Past that you’re just choosing to optimize for cost, ecological impact, carbon footprint, etc…
So by that logic we should build energy sources that need the smallest input to get running. That’s not nuclear, hence the “less efficient”.
Again, efficiency is not the same thing as scalability. You’re optimizing for investment cost (maybe build time? I can’t tell). If we planned/regulated our usage better that’s irrelevant because power usage is predictable.
People won’t need more tomorrow than today unless they make a drastic change. If electricity isn’t cheap and elastic by default, they just won’t buy that high watt GPU or electric car. Bitcoin isn’t such an important social good that it needs instant access to a continent’s worth of power, but it gobbled it up because nobody stopped it.
And even if you do need account for something unpredictable, you can still adjust with other sources. That doesn’t mean they need to be the foundation of your whole grid.
Renewables needing expensive storage isn’t an opinion either.
We all want a clean, efficient, and reliable power grid. Renewables should be a big part, and I’d prefer not having a bunch of hydrocarbons being burned whenever renewables don’t even cover the base load.
Ah yes lobbyists and not just people with basic common sense, sure
Ah yes “common sense”, the go to argument from everyone ranging from people who want to throw out migrants to nuclear shills.
After all, why wouldn’t we burn billions on a technology that is less efficient per kw/h, takes decades longer to build, doesn’t scale, has a worse LCOE than renewables and leaves us with toxic forever waste? It’s just common sense bro.
“After all, why wouldn’t we burn billions on a technology that requires destructive mining and large scale plastic waste production for a worse climate footprint? What a solar shill”
See, I too can make emotionally charged statements with no basis in reality. All energy solutions have more nuance than “radiation bad” or “cheap good”
leaves us with toxic forever waste?
Not enough to be relevant
doesn’t scale,
Scale is just how much you build
less efficient per kw/h,
Continuous power generation.
takes decades longer to build
We could build it faster if we were willing
