Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#241

Post by shevy-java » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

I understand the "Realpolitik" here, but ...

> "This government chooses safe, affordable, and sustainable energy. With less dependence on fossil imports and more control over our own supply," he wrote on X.

Really? So nuclear power plants are suddenly the new "clean" hype? Because if Belgium is stating "more control over our own supply", can we mention a little something THAT BELGIUM HAS TO IMPORT URANIUM? So the "own supply" here is ... what exactly? Besides, I question the "nuclear is now clean" campaign that Leyen is doing. She is the ultimate lobbyist. It is also strange how the EU says "russian energy is bad", but then is silent when uranium is imported into the EU from Russia. We are here being lied to by these lobbyists/politicians. And a few make a lot of money, at the expense of the great majority. Why were renewables barely strategically expanded? China did so. Why are democracies so incompetent nowadays?

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#242

Post by dalyons » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:53 PM UTC

adev_ wrote: post #211

dalyons wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is actually the pro nuke case that often has misconceptions of how a modern grid works, repeating terms like “base load” etc Because actually 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 po…

> Yes they are building a bunch but Chinas grid share of nukes is actually declining y/y and is projected to continue to decline. Renewables are too cheap. No. Nuclear energy production in China continue to increase and will probably continue to increase for the next 60y. Its relative percentage in the global mix decreased. And this has nothing to do with Solar, but with the insane amount of Coal power plants that Ch…

A lot has changed since the 2023 data in your link.

Chinas coal use declined in 2025, and is projected to continue to decline in 2026 and into the future [1]. Not share, absolute. Despite overall generation growing by 5%. And it’s all driven by guess what, renewables growth.

1 https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/china/

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-chi...

Edit: love to see a source for how cheap renewables _increase_ energy costs as you claimed

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#243

Post by triceratops » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:53 PM UTC

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.

Tell me you've been in coma the past 10 years without telling me you've been in a coma the past 10 years.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#244

Post by NeutralForest » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

shlant wrote: post #156

NeutralForest wrote: post #38

I just want Belgium to go all-in on renewables, we [already have a pretty good electricity production make-up]( https://statbel.fgov.be/en/themes/energy/electricity-product... ) but we're still [too dependent on oil]( https://www.iea.org/countries/belgium/energy-mix ). Hopefully the current energy crisis is a wake up call.

just FYI - unfortunately HN doesn't have markup like reddit so your hyperlinking doesn't work

Thanks, I'll leave it as sucky markdown :D

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#245

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:54 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…

... and add a pipe to vent the hydrogen gases outside instead of accumulating it inside the reactor building!

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#246

Post by thrownthatway » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #213

leonidasrup wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always hard count indirect deaths. We could for example argue that Japan, by stopping it's nuclear power plants for long time and replacing it's cheap nuclear electricity with expensive imported gas electricity caused more deaths than by direct radiological impact of Fukoshima accident. "Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident" https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.p…

I pretty much fully agree. I'm not actually arguing that Gen II plants need to be decommissioned immediately. I'm arguing that they need to be decommissioned and ideally replaced as soon as possible. The process that takes can look like running the Gen II reactor while a replacement Gen IV reactor is being built and then decommissioning after the IV reactor is up and running. I'm not against using nuclear, far from i…

> Gen II … need to be decommissioned and ideally replaced as soon as possible.

Why? The overwhelming majority of Gen II reactors aren’t on the east coast of Japan.

And the lessons learned from Fukushima Daiitchi can be applied elsewhere to mitigate similar risks.

My opinion is it’s more prudent to run the existing fleet for its economically useful life, remembering that reliable base load can have more value than intermittent wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries.

You also don’t get process heat not district heating from wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#247

Post by timmg » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:54 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.

That cost has a lot to do with amortizing the construction costs of the plant. I expect that just running a plant is a lot cheaper than that.

This is about *not* decommissioning working plants.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#248

Post by Lonestar1440 » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #235

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #222

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. 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)

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 always push for new Nuclear as part of the mix.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#249

Post by shevy-java » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:55 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…

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

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#250

Post by 716dpl » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:55 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

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.