Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

dpa-international.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#971

Post by jacquesm »

Moldoteck wrote: post #965
jacquesm wrote: post #714

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'…

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 in…

You have 67(!!) comments in this thread all of which amount to rabidly pro-nuclear and 'nothing to see here' arguments the bulk of which have been dealt with many times over.

I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve but that last thing that people arguing for a balanced energy mix need is this kind of zealotry.

Nuclear works, we know it works. It is expensive. It has a waste problem. It is slow to deploy and there are risks.

Your head-in-the-sand strategy is not going to result in one more nuclear deployment, but it may convince a few more people that nuclear proponents are not rational about the downsides of the technology. Which is stupid because every technology has downsides.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#972

Post by jacquesm »

Moldoteck wrote: post #966
jacquesm wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense.

> It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans

I think you are skating pretty close to disqualifying yourself from the discussion.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#973

Post by subscribed »

brightball wrote: post #402
subscribed wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you suggest every generation has it better in terms of the disposable income, so the kids can easily afford to support themselves _ and _ fund their parents retirement? :)

I suggest that the costs around children are a marketing scare tactic from people who want to create a fear of having children.

You said, verbatim:

> There's no better investment.

I then asked how is this an _investment_ for the parents. Can you explain that?

I didn't ask about the off-tangent hypothesis, but the investment claim.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#974

Post by DeusExMachina »

frm88 wrote: post #851
DeusExMachina wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> please note that he is a right winger criticising wokeism Ad hominem. Criticize the argument. Your opinion about Shellenberger or even his other opinions are irrelevant. I don't particularly like him, but that does not mean all his points are invalid.

This is not my opinion, I just paraphrased the wiki. From wokeism to the quote about aliens, it's all in there. As for the validity of his statements, please read his Congressional Testimonies in said wiki and see if that changes your mind.

It is your opinion that it is a bad thing and that it affects all his other points. That's why you felt the need to cite those points. And you did the same in this comment, which is again an ad hominem.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#975

Post by tcfhgj »

Moldoteck wrote: post #940
tcfhgj wrote: post #924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gladly, you don't need to use them

not if you read fraunhofer ise decarbonization pathways report. If you dont like nuclear and have no hydro, it basically means fossils

I don't know how you read this out of the report

When we already talk about Fraunhofer, they with a few other institutes, have been sketching out various pathways over the years for Germany for transitioning to a renewable energy system multiple times, see https://langfristszenarien.de/enertile-explorer-wAssets/docs...

While Germany has some hydro, it's just a tiny amount

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#976

Post by roenxi »

Levitz wrote: post #193
roenxi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the West is also largely not keen on producing new humans (time and costs as much as anything else). > And seems to think it can just import people from other, far, away places. That seems fundamentally OK? The #1 problem leading to humans not having enough to live comfortably is that we have an enormous number of humans and limited resources. We can't unlimit resources. There isn't a very nice way to force peo…

I don't see how any of this makes sense. >The #1 problem leading to humans not having enough to live comfortably is that we have an enormous number of humans and limited resources. Taking this as true (it very evidently isn't), then since Europe already has declining birth rates, the logic step would be to prevent migration no? An influx of people would hurt. >There isn't a very nice way to force people to stop havin…

I wasn't planning to answer but question marks sometimes bug. Sorry for the delay.

> Taking this as true (it very evidently isn't), then since Europe already has declining birth rates, the logic step would be to prevent migration no? An influx of people would hurt.

It's more directional than an end goal - for example 10 people is far too few, I'd expect living conditions to collapse. But if the population grows exponentially, there will eventually be too many. There's some optimum and it is probably far lower than 8 billion (I haven't run any numbers, I'd hazard 100-500 million people a continent, maybe lower).

> You say this as if this "amazing outcome" came out of nowhere, magically. People are forced into this because finances make it hard. That is not very nice.

This argument comes up a lot but it doesn't really make sense. Our ancestors had kids while living in conditions that we'd consider bad even for someone impoverished. I get that someone might not have kids because they feel that'd crimp their lifestyle but it is clear that they're setting their expectations high. The position is often literally "if I can't maintain the most comfortable lifestyle of anyone in my evolutionary history I won't have kids" - I meet a lot of people who wouldn't put up with conditions their parents had. That is a choice.

> Why would this happen? From your comment, it doesn't seem to be something to expect?

I dunno. I don't pay much attention to Africa.

> This sentence is so extremely out of touch as to be insulting.

I recommend deep breaths. Always a good option in times of stress.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#977

Post by leonidasrup »

dalyons wrote: post #586
leonidasrup wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to run coal power plant close to 100% to be profitable. You want to run nuclear power plant close to 100% because fuel is cheap and you want pay back CAPEX as early as possible. The article you send is perfect example why it's not economic to build new coal or nuclear power plants in US. The reasons are: very cheap natural gas and no CO2 tax. In US natural gas + solar is the cheapest way to generate el…

so what should europe do? gas being expensive doesnt make nuclear economics better for the role of variable backstop of an increasingly renewable grid. Its still a fatal economic equation for nuclear. Btw battery is rapidly changing the math on > US natural gas + solar is the cheapest way to generate electricity california went from 45% gas in 2022 to 25% gas in 2025 almost entirely because of batteries (and more sol…

Europe should:

1. Think very hard how to reduce reliance on imports (US, Russia, Middle East fossil fuels), (China solar, batteries, consumer goods).

2. Think very hard about the decarbinization strategy. The strategy was: we will replace fossil fuels with renewables, we will be successfull, everybody else will see how see how successfull we are and everybody will follow our example. This strategy is not working, world-wide CO2 emmisions are increasing every year, industry from Europe is moving outside Europe because high energy prices, GDP is stagnating. Europe should think how to push other major CO2 emmiters China, India, US, to strongly decrease CO2. Europe alone will fail to fix climate change.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#978

Post by Moldoteck »

jacquesm wrote: post #971
Moldoteck wrote: post #965

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

You have 67(!!) comments in this thread all of which amount to rabidly pro-nuclear and 'nothing to see here' arguments the bulk of which have been dealt with many times over. I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve but that last thing that people arguing for a balanced energy mix need is this kind of zealotry. Nuclear works, we know it works. It is expensive. It has a waste problem. It is slow to deplo…

What arguments have been dealt with many times over? Because I do not see that. I've provided sources from eurostat, nrel, unece, ourworldindata or even fraunhofer about gas firming in Germany. I can support any of my statements with data

Waste problem for nuclear isn't different conceptually from waste problem of arsenic/cadmium/lead -> you need to isolate them somewhere deep underground for a long time. Eg. in Germany it's Herfa Neurode, in Finland-Onkalo, in Sweden - Fosmark, in Switzerland Terradura and in France - Cigeo. At their core concept it's just a deep hole that'll store dangerous waste forever.

Nuclear is slow to deploy, yet France and Sweden achieved one of the fastest decarbonizations on the planet with it. Heck even UAE with Barakah recently managed to get ahead of Portugal and DK in terms of amount of clean TWh/y

I'm in favor in deployment of nuclear and renewables because without nuclear it'll be renewables and gas. Heck, even France has a mix of nuclear and renewables and wants to expand both, just like Sweden. On the other hand countries that ban nuclear or even expand their policy on higher levels (EC, World Bank) have far worse emissions than France and are planning to use gas firming.

It's interesting you are so concerned about my comments where I didnt explicitly asked to ban renewables nor stop their deployment but was arguing in favor in deploying of more nuclear on top but you are probably less concerned about comments from the people that say nuclear shouldn't be built entirely or even not extended like in case of Belgium.

Heck even you said "were waved off from being properly fixed because they were going to be decommissioned anyway" which is total nonsense - if a plant is unsafe to operate - operation wouldnt be allowed.

Your other statements like "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." do show you even don't understand that npp in France are shut not because they can't cool but to save biodiversity. It's done in some npp without cooling towers and affects very little production while France is maxing exports at the same time. More details are available here https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf as I've already shown

Or this statement "The cost of which (besides the maintenance costs mentioned above) has not been accounted for in the electricity pricing." is nonsense too because provisions for long term waste management are described in EDF yearly financial reports and EDF made a statement that updated cigeo costs dont affect these plans https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journ... . Situation is similar in other areas, Gosgen for example having a full cost breakdown https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...

So yes, my comments will probably not convince you, because you already have your position set, but these'll help others to see that some claims are pure nonsense

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#979

Post by themanualstates »

Manuel_D wrote: post #713
rootusrootus wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's easily a factor of 3 or 4 difference in output between a solar panel in Australia vs Northern Europe That only really matters if there is some constraint preventing you from building a proportionally larger array at the northern latitudes.

No, you cannot just build a larger array. That map doesn't effectively capture the intermittency of solar energy in different climates. In Britain the country gets less than 8 hours of energy during peak winter. It also often goes with overcast skies for extended periods of time. A bigger array does not solve these extended periods of non-production.

Today, around 1/3 of homes in the Netherlands have rooftop solar, accounting for 21% of total electric energy consumption.

Compare and contrast to the stats for 2013, when solar power made up just 0.16% of overall electricity generation and a negligible 0.96% of residences were fitted with PV systems.

The UK and NL are time zone neighbours, so I'd argue solar energy / duration are close also. Apparently the sun keeps shining in winter or with overcast skies regardless.

Initially I also had my doubts, but it seems we've got solar everywhere before the nuclear power mega projects are done with construction.

Take the European Pressurised Reactor. A French 'mass production' design from 1995, constructed starting 2005 in Finland, and commissioned in 2023. France got theirs running in 2025. China managed to generate electricity from a European Pressurised Reactor just a tad earlier, back in 2018, but the stats are filled with inaccuracies.

The mass production hype has been exceptionally farcical, considering we ended up with only three units.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#980

Post by jacquesm »

Moldoteck wrote: post #978
jacquesm wrote: post #971

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have 67(!!) comments in this thread all of which amount to rabidly pro-nuclear and 'nothing to see here' arguments the bulk of which have been dealt with many times over. I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve but that last thing that people arguing for a balanced energy mix need is this kind of zealotry. Nuclear works, we know it works. It is expensive. It has a waste problem. It is slow to deplo…

What arguments have been dealt with many times over? Because I do not see that. I've provided sources from eurostat, nrel, unece, ourworldindata or even fraunhofer about gas firming in Germany. I can support any of my statements with data Waste problem for nuclear isn't different conceptually from waste problem of arsenic/cadmium/lead -> you need to isolate them somewhere deep underground for a long time. Eg. in Germ…

Stop digging, please.
Post reply on HN