Live data from Hacker News

Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

dpa-international.com

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#881

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

Powerprice in Germany today minus 500€/MWh. Nuclear power is economic madness in an environment where we see negative electricity prices practically every day.

The madness is not the nuclear power but the catastrophic energy "system" that has produced these results.

Nuclear power would help to solve these problems, because it isn't intermittent.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#882
post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they unmanageable? They are only expensive because externalities of other solutions are not captures or are subsidised. Wind and solar are expensive if battery storage is included in most of the world. Waste is mostly a solved problem. Much more solved that waste management for coal plants in any case (whom also produce a lot of radioactive waste in addition to producing tons and tons of co2) We have more tha…

> Why are they unmanageable? Just look at the statistics. E. g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and... To say that they're _potentially_ safe by waving at the US Navy is a fallacy for several reasons. 1. It's p-hacking. E. g. with the same technology the Soviets destroyed five of their reactors. 2. The world of civilian operators is completely incomparable. 3. Civilian power plants use differ…

High level waste disposal starts this year in Finland. The site is 400m underground in bedrock. It will not be really operated in geological timescales, but filled with sealing clay after the disposal is finished in 100 years or so. It is financed by the national nuclear waste management fund, which has been fully capitalised by the nuclear generation companies during plant operation.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing every personal reason to oppose every specific project to "NIMBY" is not nuance.

They specific example GP gave was locals being opposed to something. That is textbook nimbyism. Happy for other examples that would demonstrate nuance, but that isn't it.

That would be part of it for sure.

Locally there is opposition to gold mining. People in the region oppose it and with a broad definition of ‘NIMBY’ you’d be right. But neighbouring valley, town, region etc is a broad definition.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per TWh, nuclear kills fewer people than solar , mostly because roofing is dangerous. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...

That's almost certainly just an artifact of old data, and I typed that before realizing your URL has the year 2011 in it. A lot more utility solar has been installed since then. And continual improvements in efficiency spread the mining related deaths over a great many more TWh. Our World in Data covers this and every time they update the stats, solar gains on nuclear. It's currently in the lead but they haven't upda…

>A lot more utility solar has been installed since then.

Yes, utility solar is very safe. Unfortunately rooftop solar is much more dangerous and also much, much more costly. So one has to wonder why anyone supports the massive subsidies that are still given to rooftop solar.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad weather often comes with wind or rain. Obviously it’s possible for solar, hydro and wind farms to stop producing, but that’s what storage is for.

Not really. Storage is most used for short term stabilization and alleviating congestion in certain transmission nodes. In most markets its used to provide capacity under contract with utilities to meet resource adequacy requirements which don’t consider long term regional complete loss of renewables. Longer term storage that can provide power to, say, a whole region during a multi-day storm is basically an uneconomi…

The specific battery I had in mind was hydro.

New Zealand is contemplating a large project (didn’t think we into infrastructure any more) which is considerably more capacity than a few hours.

https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/17/the-lake-onslow-pumped-hyd...

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#886
post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everybody that trumpets how fantastic France is doing with their nuclear fleet has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France Oh, and good chance that in the summer months (when demand is pretty high, especially in the South of France) they may have to shut down again because of a lack of cooling capacity. France was ahead of the game in the 70'…

> has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: I actually did look into that and am familiar with the page, as well as the waste situation, thank you You've successfully ignored the core point of people are literally dying as we speak from the things we are choosing to continue to do . And not just like five in a mine somewhere, as you would have for solar resources as well, but millions, everywhere, ev…

Renewables and reduced consumption is the answer, not swapping out one fossil fuel for another, which - incidentally - if you did it at large scale would have massive geopolitical consequences.

Your 'people are literally dying' holds zero weight: energy consumption will be what it will be unless we actually do something about that and it is the first - and by far the easiest - thing to address, well before we get to the choice of how to generate the power that we actually need. Our current consumption patterns per individual are simply not sustainable. Apologies for the bad news.

Once you've solved that people will still be dying, this time because we waited too long to do something about it. But hopefully fewer people. And switching to nuclear isn't by itself some magic bullet, it will be extremely costly and there will be accidents that will take decades or even centuries to clean up, besides the waste issue.

Nuclear proponents are much too prone to seeing it as a silver bullet, which it really is not, it has a whole slew of problems none of which you have even attempted to address. Finland is the only country that actually has the right attitude when it comes to nuclear.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#887
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.

The way China building new reactor is not typical. Most of the countries builds _one_ type of reactor, or a group of similar type of reactor. This help reduce the cost of training and certification. China, otoh, tries to _diversify_ their reactor type. If you look closely on how China treat techs, they have been doing the same for all tech for past 15+ years. They are strategically growing their tech profile.

Actually the way China builds nuclear reactors is very typical of the way western countries built reactors back when we still did it well: standardize, build a bunch in overlapping batches. Keep building.

That shouldn't be surprising, because they learned it from us.

We stopped doing it that way because we effectively stopped building.

China is building enough reactors that they can do this with several standardized designs. Which is smart.

The EPR has basically failed, so in the west we currently have 3 standardized generation III(+) designs: The Westinghouse AP-1000, the South Korean APR-1400 and the Japanese ABWR.

Of these, both the ABWR and the APR-1400 have been built quickly and cheaply, with the ABWR holding the record for fastest build times: under 4 years.

The AP-1000 had some very rough initial builds, because the design wasn't actually finished and it turned out what they had "finished" wasn't actually buildable. Ooops. These issues appear to have been ironed out, and a lot of countries are betting on the AP-1000: the US, Poland, China, and Ukraine. Turkey, Slovakia and Bulgaria have also expressed interest.

The EPR is essentially dead, with only the UK wanting to build two more UK-EPRs at Sitwell-C. Hopefully the EPR2 will be better, what I've seen of the specs suggests it has a good chance.

Anyway, one point I want to come back to is the "keep building".

This is actually crucial, and one of the reasons many western projects in recent years went so badly. We had forgotten how to build, no longer building a bunch in overlapping bunches, but single units decades apart.

And there comes to rub: in order to "keep building", you have to build slowly. Slow is smooth and smooth fast my guitar teacher used to say. The French built out far too quickly, constructing 55 reactors in just 15 years. Then they were done. Nothing to build until that initial batch wears out. Reactors last a long time, easily 60-80 years.

Ooops.

The key to this comes from queueing theory, Little's Law:

    L = ƛW
"the long-term average number of customers (L) in a stationary system is equal to the long-term average effective arrival rate (λ) multiplied by the average time that a customer spends in the system (W)"

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

So if you have a desired fleet size of 80 units and they last 80 years, you should be completing 1 unit per year. China is currently permitting 15 per year. If they keep that up throughout the construction phase, this would imply a steady-state fleet size of 1200 reactors.

That's a lot of reactors.

If you build more quickly, you won't be in steady state. Of course you can still do better than going full tilt and then stopping, smoothly modulating the build-rate.

For France, this would have meant a fleet size of 320 reactors at the rate they were going. Alternatively, the build rate for the fleet size they have would have been around one reactor every two years.

Something to keep in mind for the "not a lot of nuclear is being built"-crowd.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#888
post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was viable it would have happened already. It is happening, all over the world, with a persistent and rapid growth curve. > We have terrible storage and transmission, the parts that are actually expensive. Better cut those tariffs on cheap Chinese batteries (and aluminium for the transmission). Not that anyone would build one in the current political reality, but China produces enough aluminium that it would…

Viability is not just 'do the physical materials exist'. Building transmission in the US is almost entirely impossible at scale because he have no political will to do so and it's a regulatory nightmare. We can't just bury an entire mountain valley under 300 feet of water or evict a county of people to make room for a project like China can. Ignoring the hard part and saying the aluminum exists is not even wrong, it'…

Indeed; my example is intended to illustrate that the expense you experience isn't entirely necessary, but rather it is in a large part simply what America* chose.

* assuming I guessed the correct continent when you wrote "the west coast".

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#889

I see that here a viewpoint is widely reflected that we can substitute nuclear with solar/wind. And maybe today it could be feasible in certain areas albeit not always economical. What this viewpoint misses, is the fact that we will need an increasingly more power, as we always did, and I am certain that if we would have a chance to go 100 years into the future, power demand will be so high that our current abilities…

Nuclear energy is pure economic madness in a context where wind and solar power are generating a surplus of electricity. Today, May 1, electricity prices in Europe are in some cases at the technical minimum of minus €500/MWh. Thermal power generation, which is difficult to control, is completely unnecessary in an environment where we have negative electricity prices practically every day from March to October. In Eur…

The opposite is true.

- the current system based on intermittent renewables is the madness

- it is the intermittent renewables that are difficult to control, not thermal generation

- LCOE, not LOCE.

- Giving priority to intermittent renewables is not a law of nature. In fact it is idiocy that needs to be be stopped.

- Allowing intermittent renewables to externalize the cost of their intermittency to other, stable producers is a huge market distortion

- governments do not prioritize nuclear (yet). They prioritize intermittent renewables

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#890
post #864
post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe in a climate crisis and are serious about it you probably want to run the numbers on different options and policies to see what works rather than saying yay this boo that. Running numbers on producing energy in say 15 years time which is roughly how long it takes to approve and build nuclear, and comparing it with projected solar+wind+battery costs for 15 years hence you tend to come with much better f…

The reason why people tend to get a bit cheerleadery about nuclear power is because it has some great PR and it resonates with them. It needs the PR because it is so unconscionably expensive. The public needs to be primed to consent to indirect and direct subsidies. The reason China, US, France, it is because it shares a skills base and supply chain with nukes. The reason Sweden, Poland, Iran, etc. build a few plants…

Yeah, apparently Hinkley may be partly to keep the nuclear weapon skills. (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...)
Post reply on HN