Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#201

Post by Levitz » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

formerly_proven wrote: post #34

nandomrumber wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> And the West is also largely not keen on producing new humans (time and costs as much as anything else). In my state the immediate costs to parents for raising a kid up to the age of 18 are around eight median gross incomes with the opportunity costs usually estimated about as high. This means having a kid loses parents around one quarter to one third of their total lifetime income . That's before even considering…

Kids that the population doesn't have will simply get imported from other countries. It has no impact.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#202

Post by NeutralForest » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

seszett wrote: post #183

NeutralForest wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to shit on things but I have service almost everywhere and I take the train often with usually few issues aside from works on the tracks. Let's not blow up issues, it takes away from what we should focus on.

Well... there are worse places than Belgium for sure, and as a foreign citizen who has been living in Belgium for about a decade I think it's a reasonably well functioning country for west European standards, but I wouldn't use either SNCB/NMBS as an acceptable example as I'm not sure I have even had a single train be on time in the last few years (well I don't take the train much anymore for obvious reasons, but I s…

That's fair, I have plenty of international coworkers and I think (and from what I hear from them), that Belgium is decently welcoming, at least in large cities.

I do take the train quite often as I said, anything on large axes is usually fine (Brussels - Charleroi, Brussels - Antwerp, etc) but yeah smaller lines are usually struggling some more.

I wish we had more ambitious governments in general, not only in terms of energy but also in the (bio)tech scene, which used to be touted as our great strength (we do have a lot of pharma companies though).

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#203

Post by Orygin » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:35 PM UTC

leonidasrup wrote: post #146

cogman10 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not keen on new nuclear (time and cost as much as anything else), but it's a terrible idea to phase out operating nuclear plants which are still safe and within their planned lifetime. Funnily, I have almost the opposite view. I'm terrified of old nuclear because those first gen power plants are all missing a lot of safety lessons. Nuclear disasters happen at old plants. I want old nuclear plants to be either u…

Nuclear reactors are regularly maintained, tested and checked. When possible, old plants are upgraded to new safety standards. You can upgrade certain components, and safety systems. However things like the containment structure or pressure vessel can't be changed. You for example can't retrofit a core catcher, but you could improve the turbines, I think Steam Generators as well, replace PLC's, Tsunami proof your sit…

Belgium's reactors are really old, and have lots of issues. They have been dragging their feet for decades on the subject and instead of building new reactors 10-20 years ago, they are now un-decomissioning older reactors..

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#204

Post by boringg » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:36 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #54

pjc50 wrote: post #2

Strictly: France will no longer decommission Belgium's nuclear power plants, as Belgium will buy them. The current owner Engie are majority-owned by the French government. Apparently there also used to be a phaseout policy which is being rescinded: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/belgium-and-czechia-ram... I'm not keen on new nuclear (time and cost as much as anything else), but it's a terrible idea to phase out…

> I'm not keen on new nuclear (time and cost as much as anything else), but it's a terrible idea to phase out operating nuclear plants which are still safe and within their planned lifetime. Funnily, I have almost the opposite view. I'm terrified of old nuclear because those first gen power plants are all missing a lot of safety lessons. Nuclear disasters happen at old plants. I want old nuclear plants to be either u…

> A healthy social attitude to nuclear would be to require periodic upgrades or decommissions as the plant ages.

Tell me you don't work in energy without telling me.

Most heavily regulated industry on the planet - constant upgrades and safety reports.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#205

Post by thrownthatway » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:36 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #103

thrownthatway wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there will be plenty of Hindus and Muslims, cos they largely don’t give a fuck about any of this noise. But Christianity and Western Civilisation can kiss its own arse goodbye if it thinks this is a reasonable ideology to instil in to its young people. Don’t have kids because it’ll economically ruin your life, and it’s bad for the environment anyway. Righteo then, get on ya spaceship n fuck off to Mars then . Fre…

"No, there will be plenty of Hindus and Muslims, cos they largely don’t give a fuck about any of this noise." Have you looked at the TFRs in India and more developed Muslim countries lately? Mostly under 2 and still dropping like a stone. Turkey, Iran or UAE are every bit as much on the road to disastrous demography as Europe is, only with some delay. Does not surprise me... in both Europe and East Asia, the worst an…

Well fuck hey.

Israel may be mankind’s only hope.

As far as I’m aware Israel is the only developed Western nation with a fertility rate above replacement.

Of course, it’s more nuanced than that.

Definitely seems to be a positive correlation between religiosity and fertility rate.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#206

Post by mannykannot » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

parineum wrote: post #179

crote wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths "Basically zero" is a funny way to spell "a few dozen". It also led to a $187 billion cleanup bill - which is expected to grow by a few more tens of billions over the next decades. > 2. Was caused by the forth most powerful earthquake to have ever been recorded in the world (since ~1900), and the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan Sure, but Belgium has to be prep…

> If nuclear is so safe, how come nobody is willing to insure it? Almost every plant is bespoke, leading each plant to have unknown failure modes and rates. Additionally, insurance works by pooling risk amongst a large group of individuals but the statistical uncertainties of failure rates (too few events) and low total rate of plants leads to an incredibly uncertain risk profile.

The claim made in your first sentence is actually a reason to be concerned.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#207

Post by wolvoleo » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

leonidasrup wrote: post #146

cogman10 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not keen on new nuclear (time and cost as much as anything else), but it's a terrible idea to phase out operating nuclear plants which are still safe and within their planned lifetime. Funnily, I have almost the opposite view. I'm terrified of old nuclear because those first gen power plants are all missing a lot of safety lessons. Nuclear disasters happen at old plants. I want old nuclear plants to be either u…

Nuclear reactors are regularly maintained, tested and checked. When possible, old plants are upgraded to new safety standards. You can upgrade certain components, and safety systems. However things like the containment structure or pressure vessel can't be changed. You for example can't retrofit a core catcher, but you could improve the turbines, I think Steam Generators as well, replace PLC's, Tsunami proof your sit…

Those old reactors in Belgium have already had several issues.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#208

Post by nikanj » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

cbg0 wrote: post #123

kleiba2 wrote: post #105

Interesting fact: Belgium's neighbor Germany has commenced a search for a suitable place to store nuclear waste indefinitely in the 1970s. Given that such a place must be safe for hundreds of thousands of years, they have not yet found one. All the nuclear waste they've got is stored in temporary places (above ground) at former nuclear reactor sites. The search is not expected to conclude before 2040 at the very earl…

This sounds like a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation. There are certain types of reactors that can reuse uranium to further reduce its half life to around 6000 years so the one million years legal requirement is an unreasonable target.

Any material that is still radioactive after a hundred years wasn’t that deadly to begin with. There is a strong link between ”hotness” and short half-lifes, fast-decaying extra spicy isotopes are..fast-decaying

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#209

Post by crote » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #166

kleiba2 wrote: post #105

Interesting fact: Belgium's neighbor Germany has commenced a search for a suitable place to store nuclear waste indefinitely in the 1970s. Given that such a place must be safe for hundreds of thousands of years, they have not yet found one. All the nuclear waste they've got is stored in temporary places (above ground) at former nuclear reactor sites. The search is not expected to conclude before 2040 at the very earl…

Interesting fact: Finland just built one, for €1 billion. How can that be, if it's so incredibly difficult that Germany has not managed to do this? The simple fact is that it has virtually nothing to do with any "difficulty" of finding a repository site, the problems are purely political, same as the US: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons.[…

Oh, Germany did - see for example the Asse II mine.

It just turned out that they weren't careful enough, so now they have got a giant nuclear waste storage pit which is unstable, is trying to leak into the groundwater, needs constant babysitting to prevent it from getting even worse, and will eventually need a nearly-impossible multi-billion-euro cleanup effort. At which point they'll be left with the original waste, plus a large amount of contaminated salt mine material, sitting above ground right where it started.

I reckon they would rather not want a repeat of this.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#210

Post by elric » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

seszett wrote: post #183

NeutralForest wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to shit on things but I have service almost everywhere and I take the train often with usually few issues aside from works on the tracks. Let's not blow up issues, it takes away from what we should focus on.

Well... there are worse places than Belgium for sure, and as a foreign citizen who has been living in Belgium for about a decade I think it's a reasonably well functioning country for west European standards, but I wouldn't use either SNCB/NMBS as an acceptable example as I'm not sure I have even had a single train be on time in the last few years (well I don't take the train much anymore for obvious reasons, but I s…

Agreed.

Running ancient nuclear power plants in one of the most densely populated countries does not seem wise.

These plants have been running with phase-out in mind for the last 20 years.