Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

dpa-international.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#231

Post by thrownthatway »

mannykannot wrote: post #206
parineum wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And also largely irrelevant to a possible future standardised fleet.

Also, obviously, that could lead to an issue with one being an issue with many.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#232

Post by cogman10 »

philipallstar wrote: post #199
cogman10 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lead to basically zero direct deaths Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. That's a bad way to measure the damage done by a power generation mechanism. > 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 Yeah, crazy stuff happens and radioactive spills have longterm eff…

> > ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake > That's a non-sequitur. I think this is to establish that the large number of deaths from the disaster weren't due to the nuclear plant, which people seem to assume.

People assume it, I did not. Nor did I claim it. It is a non-sequitur because we aren't talking about deaths from natural disasters.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#233

Post by Orygin »

elric wrote: post #24

This doesn't seem like a terribly great idea, for several reasons. Belgium is nearly bankrupt, with a government deficit that the EU is already giving us grief for, in spite of some of the highest tax rates in the world. That same government hasn't exactly managed any of its semi-public companies particularly well: the national telco is for shit, postal service is nearly bankrupt, railways are mismanaged and underfun…

> That same government hasn't exactly managed any of its semi-public companies particularly well: the national telco is for shit, postal service is nearly bankrupt, railways are mismanaged and underfunded, etc.

In fairness, it's not the same gov that nuked the public service than the one in power now. But on the flip side, the selloff of public services to private sector was a success and achieved the stated goals: Destroy it from the inside and use that as an excuse for more liberalization.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#234

Post by pjc50 »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #222
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. Time and Cost seem like excellent reasons to get started now, so we can finish by 2035 and get some materials purchased before inflation gets even worse. All of the excellent arguments Pro-existing plants apply to new ones too.

Given Hinkley Point C, a plant approved now will be operational some time in the 2040s.

I think people have missed how much of a hockey stick graph renewables deployment can look like. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/01/climate/pakistan-solar-bo...

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#235

Post by bluGill »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #222
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. Time and Cost seem like excellent reasons to get started now, so we can finish by 2035 and get some materials purchased before inflation gets even worse. All of the excellent arguments Pro-existing plants apply to new ones too.

If you are starting now wind and solar are almost always your best investment. Some form of storage is next, but not until you have large amounts of wind+solar in the system. (which many areas are already reaching)

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#236

Post by cogman10 »

leonidasrup wrote: post #218
cogman10 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and ultimately Japan has decided the safest and I assume cheapest route with these reactors wasn't to rebuild but rather to decommission. These reactors can be made safer, but they all still have a foundational design flaw which means the ultimate goal should be replacing rather than continually spending money reinforcing.

On the contrary, Japan is changing it's energy policy and restarting it's nuclear reactors. "Japan’s Energy Plan: New Policy Shifts Nuclear Power Stance from Reduction to Maximization" https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01195/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

Hmm, I may have been too vague. When I stated "these" I was talking specifically about the Fukushima plants and not Japan's policy for reactors nationally.

Are they planning on restarting the Fukushima plants? I didn't think they were.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#237

Post by jpb0104 »

techteach00 wrote: post #230

I think I'm super pro nuclear everything now. See the new Russian built nuclear plant in Bangladesh. Crazy populated country currently not able to import adequate fossil fuels due to the strait conflict. Nuclear energy is a God send if managed with extreme care.

I love that you mention 'extreme care'. I was enthralled with this look inside a plant and the operations involved. Truly a sight to behold. And extreme care is not an overstatement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0afQ6w3Bjw

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#238

Post by abenga »

StreamBright wrote: post #185
crote wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> renewables have failed to produce a noticeable change in my part of europe More electricity in Europe comes from renewables than from either nuclear or fossil, with renewables rapidly approaching 50% market share. Several countries (even the non-hydro-heavy ones) are already showing multi-day periods where renewable electricity exceeds 100% of demand. If your part of Europe isn't showing a noticeable change, perhap…

Renewables are not suitable for replacing nuclear, coal and other traditional sources of energy due to the fact that you cannot control production.

Why do you need to control production? Why not over provision and store?

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#239

Post by pjc50 »

herecomesyour_ wrote: post #220
pjc50 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the meantime the renewables have failed to produce a noticeable change in my part of europe Skill issue in your part of Europe, then. In my part of Europe, https://grid.iamkate.com/ is currently reporting 95% non-carbon sources, 85% renewables, and a power price of −£12.03/MWh. > twenty years When it comes online, Hinkley Point C will have taken 20 years from first approval. Too slow.

Heartening to see someone talking about both the pros and cons. I find here and on, for example reddit or twitter, that people are unanimously in favour of Nuclear. I really don't think costs and delays are well understood. The costs are astronomical and in the UK the cost of energy has been monstrously subsidized. Consumers (public) are paying for this before the plants are running and for hundreds of years after th…

> Even small modular reactors fail to address this.

I'd be willing to engage with SMRs on the merits of actually constructed systems, but if you open https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-power-... and restrict to "operational" all but two of the projects disappear.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#240

Post by davedx »

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…

Do you fly?
Post reply on HN