Live data from Hacker News

Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

dpa-international.com

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#991

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm going to treat this as a genuine question.

If your goal is to get into a debate on the financial returns to yourself based on children as some sort of investment vehicle then this won't go very far.

At a macro level, without children human civilization ceases to exist. That's the extreme case.

At a personal level, you have to look an intentional decision not to have children and compare it to the alternative. I am not including those who are unable to have children in this because I have known many couples through my life who weren't able and I fully realize what a difficult subject it is.

For those who chose not to have children, what is the ultimate financial or life goal? To have more disposable income to buy stuff, eat more fancy dinners? What's the point of investing or saving if you won't be able to pass it on?

Choosing not to have children is the result of years of pandering influence trying to convince people that they can't afford it, they aren't good enough, they'll be less happy, they'll have less avocado toast or a less important career. The goal of the marketing is two fold: either a) pander to a person's selfishness and convince them of all they will lose by having children or b) pander to a person's selflessness and convince them that the world is an overpopulated, terrible place that no compassionate person could possibly bring a child into. Both are coordinated messages designed to convince you not to have children.

Having children, on the other hand, ensures continuity of civilization. Ensures continuity of your family. Everything that you have learned that you feel value to pass on you get to teach to your children. You get to watch them grow up, teach them lessons from your own life, watch them become good citizens helping other people, falling in love, starting families of their own and contributing to society. You spend your life guiding them, helping them through difficulties.

All of the investments that you make financially can be passed on. You teach your children the financial lessons that you've learned and about the areas you wish you knew more about so that they may be able to be good stewards and improve on it from there. You teach them to be generous, to be charitable, to volunteer. You get to watch your children, grandchildren and sometimes even great grandchildren grow. And when you get old, that same family is there to care for you in your time of need.

Everything about your children is a multiplier of your family's values; your values.

Some of the people I mentioned who couldn't have children of their own chose to adopt. Some of them poured their time and energy into the service and education of youth. It's working towards the same goal.

Having children is one of life's greatest gifts. The institutions going out of their way to try to convince people not to have children are some of the most malicious that the world has ever known. If we were to ever quantify the number of lives that simply don't exist today as a result of those messages, the toll would be extreme. For people who have fallen victim to those messages, I hope there's still time to realize the truth.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#992
post #910
post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can both build Nuclear that is safe and also build it faster. Its a matter of political will and reasonable regulation. Nations looking on the 100 year horizon would build nuclear and they would be newer and safer nuclear as time goes on. The next generation of reactors are safer and promise to be cheaper to build but the last of the GEN4 nuclear still are safe especially when we actually pay to have nuclear regul…

I don’t see why you would look at nuclear at all on a 100 year horizon. At that timescales you gotta look at the fundamentals: 1. We’ve got a free fusion reactor in the sky and collecting and storing that energy is fundamentally cheap. Especially in a long term perspective when the materials needed to store the energy will be mostly recycled and practically free. 2. We’ve got a free fission reactor under our feet. Dr…

I missed this, the point was more long term view. If you want a robust power network that doesn't kill the planet you really need to consider a timescale where climate changes effects are observable I'd argue that is a 100 years. We are debately between 100-200 years into the industrial revolution and climate changes worse impacts at still 20-50 years off (Not a lot of time to reinvent the economy just to be clear). But in that conception of time 100 year time frame seems very reasonable.

If you just look 10 years ahead you'd probably conclude solar, wind and maybe hydro is enough because short term thinking will always undersell the climate risk in my opinion. My justification for this thought is look at climate deniers arguments its always about magnitude and speed now because its the last effective argument.

Nuclear cost recovery and profit function for proven GEN4 is also on the 20-30 year timescale (depending on how much cost overruns they've faced it could be 50 years for bad cases) not the 5-10 year timescale. Making them unattractive financially speaking. Despite the fact that after that time which most US reactors are they are extremely profitable for the operator because the fuel -> power out is incrediblely in their favor. Ultimately, it takes longer term risk evaluation to show their benefits but they are undeniable and will be involved in solving the climate crisis.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#993

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

You underetimate the energy density of nuclear power. Yes. Uranium needs to be mined - slightly more 3xpensive if you extract it from sea water or recycle the fuel - but you need just one bathtub of fuel pellets to power a plant for 2 years. Solar and wind require more mining. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Yes, but at what cost? The sun is free. Nuclear means dependence.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#994

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

That's still essentially zero relative to the amount of energy we can get out of the uranium.

Yes, but at what cost? The sun is free. Nuclear means dependence.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#995

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Nuclear GHG are lowest per UNECE and NREL which do account a lot of factors. Nuclear requires least amount of mining vs any alternative so this argument makes little sense. Nuclear waste can be stored in facilities like onkalo or recycled like at la Hague(now) or Superphenix(in past)

Yes, but at what cost? The sun is free. Nuclear means dependence.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#996

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Surely you include the rare earths needed for solar panels as well in all of your comparisons. Nuclear fuel is incredibly energy dense.

Yes, but at what cost? The sun is free. Nuclear means dependence.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#997

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The implication seems to be that batteries will get more expensive at some point. Perhaps. Or more chemistries will be discovered or used. Lithium got very expensive for a short while, then cheap. The cure for high prices is high prices, because unlike oil there are tons of substitutions available for all aspects of batteries. Such as? Is your proposal that we use lead acid batteries instead of lithium based batter…

Just in case anybody else comes back to read this silly thread, here's a 60GWh sodium ion deal from today: https://electrek.co/2026/04/27/catl-sodium-ion-battery-60gwh... Looking at 9GWh in 2025 and thinking that's representative of the future is just bonkers, and not based in reality. Much less calling the continual growth "handwaving". It is beyond foolish to think that there's some limitation - a never specified l…

60 GWh over how many years? You're link doesn't say, but it does include this:

> It builds on a broader framework agreement signed in November 2025, when HyperStrong committed to procuring 200 GWh of battery cells from CATL over the period from 2026 to 2035.

If this additional 60 GWh deal is over the same time frame, this is just 6 GWh per year.

Remember the world uses 60,000 of electricity per day. What's wishful thinking is believing that any industrial process can scale by a factor of a thousand just because you want it to.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#998
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. Watts were a mistake by whatever committee it was that standardized unit names. Power should not have been given a unit; it should have been left as ∆energy/time just as velocity is distance/time.

It's shorthand for a Joule (unit of energy) per second (unit of time). Watt is the problem with that?

So joules per second per hour?

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#999

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The thing about intermittent sources is that it's easy to use them for 30-50% of generation, but once they saturate electricity demand during peak production their ability to further curtail emissions drops significantly.

For instance the Netherlands generated 33% electricity from solar during July 2025, but in January 2026 it was only 3%: https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/Netherlands/month In practice, this means that ~70% of the daytime energy use is already generated from solar, and another 30% is wind and nuclear. Adding more solar panels will mostly provide more power during the already-saturated periods.

The Netherlands could, in theory store electricity during the summer and consume it in winter. But actually creating energy storage at that vast scale is beyond our capability, short of some technological breakthrough in energy storage.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#1000
post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When a debater makes a lot of bad points, extrapolating to be suspicious of any point he makes is not and ad-hominem.

And ad hominem is when you dismiss his points because he might have done something immoral in a completely unrelated field.

Post reply on HN