Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#961

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:24 PM UTC

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #520

vince14 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the case. There are LCOLC, LFSCOE and others which land on renewables being way more expensive. Even without your made up claim about "assuming cheap and fast to build nuclear power".

Which are extremely simplified metrics. Like the LFSCOE study is only using one source of renewables through all weather together with 2020 data on battery costs. Which is why I linked a recent full system analysis. With Danish data so a vastly harder problem than a place with abundant solar. So tell me what they missed. They even tilted the study heavily towards nuclear power and assumed that the nuclear costs are 4…

you should be very careful with 'papers' written by people that stayed at the core of Danish antinuclear movement like Henrik Lund (famous “for me, nuclear power is not a dream. It’s a nightmare. My dream is renewable energy”, but there are more interesting turns there, including EnergyPLAN which was criticized a lot for it's nonsense assumptions which I can bet is used here too. It was so severe that the issue was addressed in a peer reviewed publication https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... ) and a paper that includes frauds like jacobson in citations. These two are famous for citation rings and both are public antinuclear activists.

I can bet they have very "optimistic" estimations for Hydrogen and gas firming on top of the most evident issues adressed in peer review

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#962

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:35 PM UTC

boshomi wrote: post #777

graphenus wrote: post #768

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…

"electricity prices in Europe are in some cases at the technical minimum of minus €500/MWh." - it means all citizens will pay for it through cfd's. In germany its about 18bn/y

Nuclear can increase load hours with bess buffers

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#963

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:38 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #424

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…

its funny because for ren operators it's financially better if nuclear is gone and expensive gas firming is used instead which would bump merit order

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#964

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:39 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #506

This is bad news because those are some of the most risky plants operating in Western Europe. Many, many safety issues over the years, quite a few of which were waved off from being properly fixed because they were going to be decommissioned anyway. Now whoever owns them will have to do all that back maintenance first. Or not... Both Doel and Tihange have a long, long list of issues.

that's nonsense. If plants are unsafe they wouldnt run. There's no such thing as "which were waved off from being properly fixed because they were going to be decommissioned". Operation would just be banned. Issues arent critical

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#965

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:42 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #714

lucb1e wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better a potential bad outcome than directly measurable and ongoing harm, though Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#/media/File:How-... with the different energy mixes at https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/ . I know which european country's energy mix I'd choose if I could just pick one at will (with the caveat that running flat countries on hydro is not going to work, so that's sadly not ubiquitous…

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'…

It seems you are the one that doesnt understand the topic.

EDF is still making big profits each year except 2022. Cooling isn't a problem either https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf EDF isn't building cooling towers there because exports are already maxed out.

Waste storage isn't a problem. It'll be stored in Cigeo just like Onkalo. Over half of Cigeo cost is already reserved/covered by EDF (it includes operation till sealing). Cost was accounted in opex just like www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html . So please, avoid spreading nonsense

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#966

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:45 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #886

lucb1e wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

nuclear is not fossil fuel. Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense.

reduced consumption - this sounds like sweet (post) communist times ive experienced when i was a kid.

Finland built Onkalo, Sweden started Fosmark, Switzerland approved terradura and France will have cigeo. It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#967

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

cryptoneo wrote: post #379

Everytime this comes up, HN is becoming more and more an X-like echo chamber: Touting nukes as the solution to a spike-load problem in a densely populated area, and the waste disposal as a solved problem (by externalizing the cost). Meanwhile the prices dropped further than ever, 20kW peak with 20kWh batteries for EUR 10k, which provides >95% self-sufficiency in a 2p Household and lets you sell more than 80% of the y…

Cost isnt externalized, it's that antinuclear people fail to inform themselves, like https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...

Nor is safety a problem https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

">95% self-sufficiency" - oh great, and how much to get to 100% with firming, transmission and curtailment and grid forming inverters included?

If you want most flexible plants you would advocate for BWR's with BESS buffers

Idk about lobbies, but France has one of the cleanest grids in EU and did the job in under 20y. Germany, one of the most antinuclear areas is one of the worst pollutters after 25y. Austria, another antinuclear country with plenty of hydro = easy to finish the job with VRE, still has worse emissions.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#968

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

shevy-java wrote: post #241

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 "ow…

Nuclear needs least amount of materials/imports per kwh https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-technologies-need-far-...

It's not a campaign to say nuclear is clean, it's a reality https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20... If you dont agree to it it's your problem

"uranium is imported into the EU from Russia" - here you prove again you have zero idea about the topic. Russia is ore importer itself. It exports enriched fuel (which can and IS easily done in EU too, by Orano and Urenco, even in Germany). Out of 22bn energy imports from RU last year, only 0.8bn were nuclear related, most of them spent by countries still running VVER units like Hungary because of their specific fuel elements but that will gradually be gone too with Westinghouse/Framatome help

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#969

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

soulclap wrote: post #413

I am surprised that a community like HN where a large percentage consists of developers is so positive about a nuclear power plant. One bug could lead to severe damage to everything and everyone around a nuclear power plant. We see those kind of bugs on the front page daily. In my opinion it is absolutely irresponsible to start them up in the first. I have seen too much to actually trust in people always getting thei…

Maybe because we can also check data, like https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-technologies-need-far-...

https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

Or just looking at the cost of entire french fleet per court of auditors vs german EEG fund alone?

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#970

Post by natmaka » Sat, May 02, 2026, 5:23 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #897

natmaka wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths "Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake or tsunami." According to the "World Nuclear Association" (mission: to facilitate the growth of the nuclear sector by connecting players acr…

It would be a good idea to actually read the source you're quoting to see if it supports your case. > 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture*, that were not due to radiation-induced damage or to the earthquake or to the tsunami, had been identified by the Japanese authorities. About 90% of deaths were for persons above 66 years of age. Of these, about 30% occurred within the first three…

If, instead of the nuclear power plant, Japan had deployed photovoltaic panels or wind turbines, the evacuation would not have been necessary and some of these people would have survived.

According to the then Prime Minister nuclear experts announced to him, while the accident was unfolding, that "The reactors' accident could, in the worst case, have caused the evacuation of the entire population living within a radius of 250km, including Tokyo, a total of 50 million people" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#In_media

Only the three least powerful of the six reactors were in operation at the time of the accident. Reactor #4 was off and unloaded.

Approximately 80% of the released cesium-137 (half-life: 30 years) was dispersed eastward by winds and deposited in the Pacific Ocean (far from human settlement), where the enormous volume of water and strong currents reduced its concentration. Other studies, such as those by Yasunari et al., confirm these undisputed facts, which are also accepted by nuclear agencies.

The sole cleanup may cost up to 660bn USD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cle... ).

To begin with.