Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#291

Post by thrownthatway » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:22 PM UTC

shevy-java wrote: post #249

shawabawa3 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that the Fukoshima disaster 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths 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 3. ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake Requiring a nuclear plant in Belgium to be safe enough to survive what caused the Fukoshima disaster is probably not a good us…

You write as if Fukushima was the only example. Take chernobyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster You are correct that there were only few deaths but there was radiation damage, and if you sum that up then Fukushima was definitely noticable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident

Chernobyl happened, but it’s irrelevant to calculating risk for any other operational nuclear power reactor.

That RMBK was built by those crazy Russians who thought it was reasonable to not even bother with a containment vessel / building.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#292

Post by flakeoil » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:22 PM UTC

dalyons wrote: post #175

dmix wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep even before the war German industry was ringing alarm bells about how their high energy costs made it very difficult to compete against China. They should be adopting every sort of energy. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/13/business/energy-environme... > For many industrial companies in Europe, high energy costs have been a big concern, especially since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But even before then, ele…

Building _new_ nuclear is not going to make their energy costs cheaper. It is the most expensive form of generation

You probably have to look at the whole picture. Having part of the energy generation from nuclear probably makes the total cheaper than having no nuclear. Even if nuclear maybe is the most expensive.

Not having enough energy or having it cut off by a neighbour is very expensive.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#293

Post by ViewTrick1002 » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:23 PM UTC

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #248

bluGill wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

This just seems like kneejerk anti-Nuclear stance in disguise. Maybe you did intend it as just a neutral observation but it's hard to take it that way. Like maybe you're right... why not also support Nuclear plants, which we in fact need for baseload energy? Surely there are better places to cut the budget than other carbon-free energy sources. I have no argument with building out solar and wind maximally. I will alw…

Where does this "need for baseload" energy come from? Baseload is a demand side concern. It can be fulfilled by any number of sources and we already have grids operating with zero baseload.

The grids have dispatchable power. But that is a different concerns.

Point out the "baseload power" in this grid:

https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&...

You also have to look at it in terms of outcomes. How do we get the most decarbonization the quickest per dollar spent?

Focusing on reducing the area under the curve. Looking at it from that perspective wasting money and opportunity cost on new built nuclear power leads to spending longer time entirely dependent on fossil fuels.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#294

Post by mpweiher » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:23 PM UTC

dalyons wrote: post #228

SecretDreams wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power build outs are rarely driven by cost structures in a vacuum, or we'd all still be digging for coal. They're regularly driven by policy. It is a farce to think electricity choices are entirely capitalistic in nature, although maybe that's the case in some localized regions that probably (and regularly) hold other backwards policies in the name of "capitalism".

So your answer is use the state to force people to pay more for less competitive energy? There isn’t another choice here.

That's what we are currently doing. We are using the state to force people to pay for expensive intermittent renewables.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#295

Post by ViewTrick1002 » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:26 PM UTC

UltraSane wrote: post #58

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…

A nuclear reactor can generate 1 billion watts of very low CO2 electricity for 60 years.

At a cost which could generate ~10 billion watts of very low CO2 electricity for decades if invested in renewables.

Also remember that large parts of a nuclear plant is replaced over its operational life. Control systems, steam generators, turbines, generators, tubing, valves etc.

What stays is the outer shell and pressure vessel. A nuclear plant doesn't just "work" for 60 years. And there's no trouble designing renewables with a 60 year lifespan.

We just don't do it because spending money on getting their expected operational lifetimes from decades to 60+ years is betting on extremely uncertain future returns.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#296

Post by declan_roberts » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:26 PM UTC

rmoriz wrote: post #197

I‘m very interested in the financials of this decision. Nuclear plants are designed for base loads but are way more expensive than solar and wind energy. The losses will increase the costs of energy.

Baseline energy is incredibly important, and often not factored into the "cost" comparisons.

Especially true now with the explosive growth of data center and AI workloads.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#297

Post by mpweiher » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:26 PM UTC

dalyons wrote: post #221

dmix wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why is China building 30 new reactors on top of the 60 they already have, if it's not competitive? https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/china-says-i... The answer is usually more about how China can actually build things, not that nuclear isn't economically feasible.

And yet, even with their buildout the nuclear share of electricity is projected to decline y/y. Because renewables are cheaper. And yes it does show china can build things, but it also highlights the different calculus of a single party state. They can force people & the state to buy uncompetitive nuclear power (under the banner of energy stability) and not worry about being voted out.

No it's not.

You actually have to build out intermittent renewables much faster than nuclear even for comparable generating capacity due to the much shorter lifetime of the equipment. See Little's Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little%27s_law

China recently signed up to the COP28 pledge to triple nuclear generation. In the same time period, worldwide electricity generation is predicted to rise by 50-100%, so the nuclear share will grow by 50% - 100%.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#298

Post by pvaldes » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:26 PM UTC

shawabawa3 wrote: post #119

cogman10 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima. It was a Gen 1 plant which already has the issue that a thermal runaway is possible. There were other examples of this happening like TMI. The backup for Fukushima was onsite generators which were flooded and ultimately failed causing the meltdown. The safety lessons we learned from all gen 1 reactors was to apply passive shutdown mechanism where if input power fails fission ultimately stops. That's not so…

It's worth noting that the Fukoshima disaster 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths 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 3. ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake Requiring a nuclear plant in Belgium to be safe enough to survive what caused the Fukoshima disaster is probably not a good us…

Lets try to speak as adults about this.

1) There are at least 403 cases registered of Fukushima residents developing Thyroid cancers after 2011 and the study is still ongoing. This is five times the expected cancer ratio.

Of those at least 155 cases of malignant cancers happened in children (Sokawa 2024). We know that thyroid cancers are rare among young people... except in one special place were a sudden increase in similar cases was registered since the 80's. This place is called Chernobyl. Children that lived in towns around Fukushima daichi where the accident happened have three times more probability of suffering thyroid cancer than children that lived in towns farther from the plant.

2) Not the strong excuse that it seems, after the company was warned by scientists about the possibility of such earthquake and the urgency to improve their safety measures. They had a lot of time to fix it, and did absolutely nothing

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#299

Post by BirAdam » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:26 PM UTC

Everyone focuses on the safety of power production, and I totally get that and think it's important, but the mining and enrichment of uranium should also be considered. Nuclear "disasters" aren't just 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. There are plenty of other disasters that aren't power plants.

Growing up in the USA, my home town was contaminated with uranium, thorium, and radium due to a nearby uranium processing plant that later became a superfund site. It was in the soil, the water, and sometimes even the air. I knew far too many people who've died of cancers, and I, like many from that area, have thyroid issues from exposure.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#300

Post by ViewTrick1002 » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:27 PM UTC

flakeoil wrote: post #292

dalyons wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building _new_ nuclear is not going to make their energy costs cheaper. It is the most expensive form of generation

You probably have to look at the whole picture. Having part of the energy generation from nuclear probably makes the total cheaper than having no nuclear. Even if nuclear maybe is the most expensive. Not having enough energy or having it cut off by a neighbour is very expensive.

That is not the case. Grid modelers always land on renewables being cheaper. Except for the cases when the studies start with "assuming cheap and fast to build nuclear power".

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/04/17/new-metric-shows-rene...