Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#421

Post by thrownthatway » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:29 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #388

anonymars wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two new AP1000 reactors are being built in Ukraine. During a hot war.

That’s how safe and important these things are.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#422

Post by matthewdgreen » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:29 PM UTC

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…

It doesn’t really matter if people on HN or Reddit are in favor of nuclear. At the end of the day, nuclear will get built if someone thinks the cost is worth it over the alternatives. The Internet fan club is mostly irrelevant.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#423

Post by graeme » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:29 PM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #409

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…

I did some research about that nuclear power plant. In 1985 dollars, the total construction cost was 5.6B USD. That is an astonishing amount of money. That is at least 16B USD in 2026 money. If you also include decomissioning costs of about 4-5B USD... how the fuck does nuclear power make any economic sense? PV solar plus batteries: ALL THE WAY. To be clear, I am not anti-nuclear power by any means. I think it is a t…

It doesn't generate power by burning carbon and is a grid replacement for carbon sources. Grid cost rise sharply on 100% solar.

Taking china as an example they currently build solar, coal and nuclear. No country is building only solar/batteries.

Further if we build more nuclear we'd be better at it and it would be cheaper.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#424

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:29 PM UTC

Decommissioning always seemed odd absent either specific dangers or higher costs of operating than renewables. For new construction of course the costs shift dramatically, but existing plants that can continue to run would seem to provide exactly the legroom that enables more rapid expansion of renewables. Less time spent backfilling and exposure to both market and geopolitical forces of other energy sources, eg when there are disruptions of the sort going on now.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#425

Post by matthewdgreen » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:31 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #239

herecomesyour_ wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not only this, but the benefit of SMR is based on the possibility that they can be mass-produced at low cost. Until that happens, the benefit doesn’t exist. Solar and batteries and wind have already passed that threshold, but cheap mass-produced SMRs don’t exist yet, even if someone can point to a couple of expensive, bespoke SMRs.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#426

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:32 PM UTC

panja wrote: post #414

throwaway2037 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did some research about that nuclear power plant. In 1985 dollars, the total construction cost was 5.6B USD. That is an astonishing amount of money. That is at least 16B USD in 2026 money. If you also include decomissioning costs of about 4-5B USD... how the fuck does nuclear power make any economic sense? PV solar plus batteries: ALL THE WAY. To be clear, I am not anti-nuclear power by any means. I think it is a t…

Maybe there is a discussion to be had about WHY it needs to make economic sense? Power is a natural monopoly, maybe it doesn't need to be a part of the economy?

And $ cost is a poor metric to chase when what you really care about includes a lot more-- exposure to the whims of geopolitical forces you can't foresee or control, which have both $ cost and more.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#427

Post by 0x000xca0xfe » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:32 PM UTC

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…

Dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years is pure fearmongering. There are loads of chemicals, metals and other nasty stuff that are dangerous forever and also need to be stored somewhere safely, indefinitely.

I personally live close to a commercial Asbestos dump (an old mine) and absolutely nobody cares about it. It's so unimportant it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article.

Yet the second radioactive waste is concerned (even if it's just old rubble) everybody seems to lose their minds and refuses to even think rational.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#428

Post by zekrioca » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:34 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #423

throwaway2037 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did some research about that nuclear power plant. In 1985 dollars, the total construction cost was 5.6B USD. That is an astonishing amount of money. That is at least 16B USD in 2026 money. If you also include decomissioning costs of about 4-5B USD... how the fuck does nuclear power make any economic sense? PV solar plus batteries: ALL THE WAY. To be clear, I am not anti-nuclear power by any means. I think it is a t…

It doesn't generate power by burning carbon and is a grid replacement for carbon sources. Grid cost rise sharply on 100% solar. Taking china as an example they currently build solar, coal and nuclear. No country is building only solar/batteries. Further if we build more nuclear we'd be better at it and it would be cheaper.

You are talking only about the operations of the nuclear, and ignoring all the high energy process required to mine and process uranium before it can be used as a fuel, and after as waste. But let’s pass this problem to the next generation, they will know what to do :)

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#429

Post by noIdeaTheSecond » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:34 PM UTC

toasty228 wrote: post #130

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…

This is such a non problem, here is the waste from the entire french nuclear production ever (the red cube): https://www.discoverthegreentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023... Meanwhile I've been filtering the german coal byproducts with my lungs, and paying my electricity 2-3x more per kwh than the french

Is that the real location or a mere simulation of size? If it's the former I wonder why close to the water? I'd understand if it was a nuclear reactor...maybe for cooling purposes but only for storing the waste? I guess it's just a size simulation, although if it were reality maybe the though is: Oceans are big enough to dilute the whole thing in case it breaks...as a watersports and ocean fan that makes me sad

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#430

Post by AngryData » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:34 PM UTC

arijun wrote: post #362

thrownthatway wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What nuclear disasters? Exactly? Name one nuclear disaster at an old nuclear plant whose lessons weren’t applied to the whole fleet.

I think the issue comes with unknown unknowns. Before Fukushima someone might have said the same thing you just have, but a new disaster still came along and caused a lot of issues. I am still bullish on nuclear, but I think waving away concerns might do more harm than good.

Fukushima was a known risk though, they just never bothered to fix the problem. Plus just being planned in the 60s meant the initial design was born only about 15 years after nuclear power was invented. Fukishima was like driving around in a Model T, being told original brakes and tires and lack of seatbelts were unsafe, but still being regularly driven down busy roads without bothering to upgrade those features.