Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#381

Post by thrownthatway » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:26 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #143

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…

> 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…

> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death,

There have been plenty of direct deaths caused by coal power. Coal dust can be quite explosive and has caused a lot of deaths over the years. And plenty of coal fired boilers, both stationary and mobile (locomotives) and failed causing plenty of deaths.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#382

Post by Toutouxc » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

foolfoolz wrote: post #339

bryanlarsen wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivanpah is solar thermal. Nobody is advocating for solar thermal, photovoltaic has decisively won.

mount signal, the largest PV plant in california makes 1,200GW/hrs per year. it would still take ~15 copies of mount signal for a single diablo canyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Signal_Solar my whole point is solar is great, but the insane scale it requires to get reasonable output is really underestimated. you would need solar fields 100sqmi big. probably many of them. solar alone won’t be the future of hum…

The other day I calculated what it would take to run my entire country on pure solar, assuming magical infinite storage capacity. Even here in Central Europe, the required area for all the panels was a pretty insignificant number that, even if built as a single huge circle, would easily fit in many different places.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#383

Post by pqtyw » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

crote wrote: post #324

otikik wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake > Irrelevant. Well, that needs more nuance. You have to understand that Japan is unusually well prepared for natural disasters. From earthquake resistant building codes, to alarm systems, education, to building, to earthquake refuges. I would venture to say that it is the most earhquake-prepared country in the world (although I have no proof of that point and I don't feel l…

Sure, but Chernobyl didn't require a massive tsunami, and neither did Three Mile Island. On top of that there have been dozens of near-misses. On the other hand: what would have been the result of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami hitting a wind farm, or a PV installation? Nuclear reactors are inherently a very risky business, with virtually unlimited damages if something goes seriously wrong. I'm sure all the re…

> Sure, but Chernobyl didn't require a massive tsunami, and neither did Three Mile Island.

Three Mile Island was a success in the sense that even the worst case scenario the safety measures are sufficient to more or less fully contain it.

In Chernobyl's case... well yes it proves that if you let incompetent and stupid people build and operate nuclear power plants horrible things can happen.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#384

Post by 1718627440 » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

polski-g wrote: post #378

1718627440 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have not yet found one. Meaning no region can be selected by a politician with out committing political suicide.

Yes, putting it in a swing state is a non-starter. But putting the waste in a solid red or blue state? Makes perfect sense.

I was referring to Germany and I am not aware, that a concept such as "swing states" exists there. Is declaring a suitable place for nuclear waste an issue in the USA as well?

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#385

Post by fnordian_slip » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

afh1 wrote: post #252

adev_ wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This oil shock is going to have lasting impacts. It is not only the oil shock. Most of the nuclear initiatives at the EU level have been mostly blocked by the German government for the last 15y. The Russian gas crisis in 2022 reshuffled the cards entirely: Germany realized that constructing its entire energy policy on a foreign asset (Russian Gas) was not really a smart move. The German position changed significant…

German anti-nuclear "greens" destroying the country's economy by disabling green power generation will go down in history as one of the worst political blunders in this century, probably next to Trump's war in Iran. And for 15y if you said anything about it you were an evil capitalist who doesn't care about the environment. No wonder the country is ever more polarized.

>German anti-nuclear "greens" destroying the country's economy by disabling green power generation will go down in history as one of the worst political blunders in this century,

The sad thing is, you might be right. With the rise of far right populists everywhere, it is entirely possible that it will be written in the history books just as you said it. It won't matter that it is a lie, as nuclear was destroyed by the conservatives (just like our solar industry, incidentally), not the green party.

Facts don't matter when it comes to nuclear energy, otherwise nobody would pretend that it's "the cheapest form of energy" and the like me

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#386

Post by txdv » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

adev_ wrote: post #116

716dpl wrote: post #31

The EU also released a plan in the past week to accelerate the deployment of both nuclear and renewable energy. This oil shock is going to have lasting impacts. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/accelerateeu-energy...

> This oil shock is going to have lasting impacts. It is not only the oil shock. Most of the nuclear initiatives at the EU level have been mostly blocked by the German government for the last 15y. The Russian gas crisis in 2022 reshuffled the cards entirely: Germany realized that constructing its entire energy policy on a foreign asset (Russian Gas) was not really a smart move. The German position changed significant…

Can we get one in Lithuania?

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#387

Post by dalyons » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

vince14 wrote: post #366

dalyons wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree storage is a problem. But the concept of “base load” is outdated. As I mentioned in another comment - Because actually “base load” nuclear is terrible in a grid increasingly full of nearly-free variable sources (solar&wind). The nukes need to stay at 100% all the time selling their power at a high fixed price to have any remote chance of being economical. Cheap variables push nuke's expensive power off the gr…

Storage is not just 'a problem', it doesn't exist and won't for many many decades. The planned solution is hydrogen power plants, but no one wants to build them because the infrastructure, including electrolysers, is way too economically unfeasible. Therefore, Germany is and will continue to be dependent on coal and gas, as these are the main producers every night. That's your 'grid backup fee' for you.

Long term storage is a problem. Nightly will be solved soon by batteries. California is well on the way, down to 25% fossil in 2025 from 45% in 2022, due to batteries. And they just keep getting built. Australia is on the same track.

If we have to burn some gas to cover the occasional long term weather issue, I’m ok with that , if we’re at 90+% decarbonized at that point it’s still a huge win.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#388

Post by nicoburns » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

anonymars wrote: post #270

thrownthatway wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMBKs are irrelevant to nuclear reactor safety. You had a good argument up until you went there.

Even if we don't treat Chernobyl as sui generis, the safety situation with nuclear power is akin to that of airplanes. We don't bat an eye at the quotidian death toll of cars or coal I've yet to see a nuclear safety argument that doesn't reduce to 'nuclear energy provokes emotional fear' Oh, it occasionally irradiates a swath of land and renders it uninhabitable? How about coal ash ponds or indefinite mine fires or i…

> it occasionally irradiates a swath of land and renders it uninhabitable

The big fear for me would be that this happens to a nuclear power plant that is located in a densely populated area (of which there are many). Chernobyl was bad, but imagine the impact if the exclusion zone contained a major city.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#389

Post by CalRobert » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:40 PM UTC

foolfoolz wrote: post #323

Alexsky2 wrote: post #253

A bit unrelated to the Belgium story but I recently visited Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, CA and learned a ton about the technical details, safety systems, and policy decisions that go into operating a nuclear power plant. When operating at full capacity, it provides up to 10% of California power! While there is certainly always more such facilities can do for safety and efficiency, my impre…

diablo canyon has 2 reactors that can make 1.1MW per hour continuously. about 2.2MW/hr they both aren’t always on but that’s the goal. It’s closer to 2MW/hr actual the largest solar plant in california is Ivanpah. It made 85GW/year. Thats 97MW/hr. It would take 20 clones of Ivanpah to match one diablo canyon. Ivanpah took 4 years to build, cost 2.5B and was in discussions to close because it’s not cost effective. htt…

What does 2.2 MW/hour mean?

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#390

Post by nicoburns » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

716dpl wrote: post #250

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

While this is true, we don't have a good solution for long term energy storage. Even with plummeting costs and new technologies like sodium ion, batteries still only get you maybe ~12 hours of discharge. Pumped hydro give you longer storage, but there are limited places where you can build it. Unless geothermal becomes competitive, nuclear is still the best solution for carbon-free baseload.

~12 hours storage + overbuilt solar + load shifing seems like it could probably be a complete solution for the vast majority of the world (everywhere that's vaguely close the equator).