Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 02, 2026, 2:27 PM UTC

cushychicken wrote: post #621

simplyluke wrote: post #556

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.

The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record. It’s also worth noting that the US Navy is the only organization with a perfect nuclear safety record. My point being: by god, let the Navy nukes train everyone else!

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

PearlRiver wrote: post #743

simplyluke wrote: post #556

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.

I live close to the Belgian border. Some time ago there was concern about Belgian reactors (they are old and their concrete was fracturing) and they were distributing iodine pills. Keeping them open even longer just sounds peak Belgium.

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

taegee wrote: post #855

Cwizard wrote: post #794

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…

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC

frollogaston wrote: post #738

yawaramin wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they're not entitled to their own facts.

There's not much trust in anyone who says nuclear is completely safe, "we fixed it now," etc. That shouldn't be the motto. But fossil fuel is already killing more people, coal puts more radioactive uranium dust into the air even, and that's before getting into climate change. I think people who are anti-nuclear and environmentalist are wrong, but it's not an insane opinion to have. There's no fact you can point to th…

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 2:53 PM UTC

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #770

FabHK wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where the only injuries comes from traditional construction and mechanical industry work. Still count.

They do count, but look at it from a societal perspective. For the general public no harm can come their way. Unless they through some mechanical failure manage to walk underneath a wind turbine shedding or collapsing. Same with solar. Which is even less risky. For nuclear power the about all effects from a large scale failure will impact society through either radiation or life changing evacuations. And then society…