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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#131

Post by throwaway_20357 »

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…

Why would it need to be safe for "hundreds of thousands of years" in the first place? Do we not think we would find some other use of nuclear waste within the next decades/centuries, and if not, just send it to space?

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#132

Post by NL807 »

lifty wrote: post #66

There's a very dark scenario where for some reason or another (all out nuclear war or asteroid hit) sunlight is blocked, in which case having stable base load energy production from nuclear would be very useful. I know this is an unlikely scenario and hopefully it never happens, but it's always good to think about tail risks like these.

The world doesn't even have the foresight of doing something basic, like mitigating against fuel crisis scenario, let alone what you have suggested.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#133

Post by _aavaa_ »

SecretDreams wrote: post #126
_aavaa_ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm a big advocate for renewables, but it's hard to not also advocate for nuclear to be in that mix. It's not hard to argue that new nuclear should be added to the mix. The cost and time required to build them is non trivial. During that entire construction time you can build renewables substantially faster and for a lower price. And while you're building the prices continue to go down, meaning it gets ever cheaper…

> The cost and time required to build them is non trivial. During that entire construction time you can build renewables substantially faster and for a lower price. They're not mutually exclusive. If time and money were the only considerations in life, I'd only have pets instead of some kids too. We'd never go to war because it would be expensive and costly. I'd drive only gas cars because they're cheaper and easier…

Except they are mutually exclusive. Money spent by utility companies (or by taxpayers more broadly) to add new generation is not infinite, every dollar spent on nuclear is a dollar not spent on other renewables.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#134

Post by modo_mario »

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…

>Some of them have cracks in the reactor vessels.

If I remember well those microfissures were detected with methods nobody else anywhere felt the need to use and were probably there since their construction (and in any similar vat across the world) nor do they pose any realistic big risk.

>Meanwhile Belgium has a lot of off-shore wind power in the north sea, but lacks battery capacity and transmission lines. Spending money on that would likely be a much better investment.

You also know it would be a lot lot more expensive which is why the minister that ran the ordeal mentioned before was instead negotiating for a number of gas plants with decades long profit guarantees.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#135

Post by triceratops »

artursapek wrote: post #120
triceratops wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a leap of logic. Europe also imports consumer goods, digital services, and much else. Why not talk about that?

Those are not mission critical for the survival of a civilization.

Clothing isn't critical? It's on Maslow's hierarchy. Digital and financial services are quite critical for modern society.

If you really think Europe isn't dependent on anything foreign other than energy and labor, you really haven't thought it through.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#136

Post by jlnthws »

lifty wrote: post #66

There's a very dark scenario where for some reason or another (all out nuclear war or asteroid hit) sunlight is blocked, in which case having stable base load energy production from nuclear would be very useful. I know this is an unlikely scenario and hopefully it never happens, but it's always good to think about tail risks like these.

Volcanic winters are far more frequent than catastrophic asteroid blasts. Disregarding a volcanic winter possibility and its impact is like disregarding the possibility of a pandemic.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#137

Post by thrownthatway »

hylaride wrote: post #75
ramon156 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Belgium is nearly bankrupt can anyone jumpstart me on this, since when is belgium bankrupt?

Bankrupt is a politically loaded term, but they have very high debt and taxes, political gridlock (it is very divided among French and Flemish linguistic lines, plus all the other traditional left/right polarization), and it is all but impossible to make reforms. IIRC there was no sitting government for 500 days at some point. It's also got all the classic problems of an aging population. Belgium is a curious country…

Good job.

Now detail three strengths Belgium posses.

If you hyper focus on the problems, you’ll be completely oblivious to the solutions.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#138

Post by wholinator2 »

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…

I don't know but i feel like Nuclear reactors are something worth taking to the 99.99% percentile of safety. How much money does it really cost? And how does that money compare to the economic prosperity of the land that is currently radiation free. As well, i think us (assuming) not knowledgeable Nuclear engineers discussing the cost benefit of reactor safety should be basically locked out of the conversation. Plausible sounding soundbites are just too easily generated these days for anyone without credentials to have stake in these decisions.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#139

Post by dbvn »

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…

The most bureaucratic thing ever done... search for a place to store something for 56 years. still not done

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#140

Post by tptacek »

Projectiboga wrote: post #94
UltraSane wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With waste with half lifes in the tens of thousands of years sitting in metal casks which cant last 1,000 years.

And? Conventional power plants are killing people now.
Post reply on HN