Belgium has dropped nuclear phaseout plans adopted over two decades ago. Previously, it had delayed the phaseout for 10 years over the energy uncertainty triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Belgium’s parliament on Thursday voted to drop the country’s planned nuclear phaseout.
In 2003, Belgium passed a law for the gradual phaseout of nuclear energy. The law stipulated that nuclear power plants were to be closed by 2025 at the latest, while prohibiting the construction of new reactors.
In 2022, Belgium delayed the phaseout by 10 years, with plans to run one reactor in each of its two plants as a backup due to energy uncertainty triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine.
You must log in or # to comment.
Article is wrong on a major point though:
They are not undoing the phase-out part (actually a cap on the active lifetime of a reactor), but lifting the ban on building any new reactors. There is no deal to maintain the currently active plants any longer than what the previous governments negotiated with Electrabel/Engie over and they are still poised to close qs planned
This change is here because the ban included medical/research reactors, such as the one in Mol that used to provide chemo-therapy products, which we are now buying abroad.
As for the other arguments usually found on this topic:
- Belgium lacks the space for a scaling-up of windmills, and with the control-components found in chinese transformers, (who have a 80% market share in solar) it would give the Chinese government the power to literally damage our infrastructure, or cause shutdowns like Spain & Portugal saw. All without leaving evidence behind, btw. So an energy reliance built on Chinese products is as dangerous as building it around a Russian gas pipeline.
- Nuclear power has a lower CO2 footprint per GW, lower injury & death toll, and isn’t even the top radiation pollution source. (That’s actually coal, with Wind a potential second if we had more data on Bayan Obo)
- While >90% of solar panels currently in use globally have no pre-determined disposal, Belgium does require a contribution to Recubel on sale, so their waste which can contain stuff like PFAS atleast won’t end up in a landfill. There is no national recycling plan for windmills as far as I could find.
- The largest cost of nuclear power is safety. Both reactor & waste. The largest gain is a massive amount of reliable electricity. Unfortunately, due to how global energy markets work, the profit has become unreliable (ironically in part due to solar/wind) and large nuclear plants are generally considered an economic loss. That’s why Engie doesn’t want to keep the nuclear plants open anymore, they make more money from “emergency capacity” subsidies not running gas power plants than actually producing electricity in Doel & Tihange. But if someone figures out a way, why would you stop them from innovating? Not to mention the law also banned any potential ‘safe’ methodin the future, like Thorium reactors, fission, …
- It’s still legal to build a coal plant in Belgium, the government only regulates safety & waste when you do. This law repeal puts nuclear power at the same level as all other sources. It is up to the experts at FANC to define what a safe nuclear plant is, and to investors if the think it’s worth the cost, be it financial, PR, or other.
Cracks in the pressure vessel? Nah, this’ll hold another two decades…
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest. And easily scalable.
Its neither actually, and it makes us dependent on foreign countries
Nuclear is actually poorly scalable - with the average build time of a plant being ~7 years (worldwide). Its well over 10 years in the EU and the average in the last 30 years in the US has been 16.4 years. In nations with no nuclear power generation experience it would likely be longer (ie: most nations), and unlike solar it’s been getting more expensive as the technology has rolled out over the decades. They’re such long and expensive projects that South Carolina currently has two abandoned unfinished nuclear reactors they gave up on when the projects ran way over budget.
Meanwhile solar added 700GW of new generation worldwide last year, while nuclear added… 5.5GW. Solar plants take months, not years to build - that’s an order of magnitude lower than nuclear.
We don’t have time left to slowly build out nuclear power plants as we move to greener energy generation to address climate change, so it’s pretty important that we favour solutions that are ready immediately - and if they’re cheaper and renewable with no nuclear waste to manage? Even better.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/01/13/the-fastest-energy-change-in-history-continues/ (This source includes references to any figures I’ve mentioned)
Are you retarded? how many sources of power that are dirtier can you come up with. then pause a moment and list the cleaner sources. then try counting again.
Well if we’re talking about lifetime carbon footprint, renewables. The drawbacks for nuclear are almost entirely political and economical, but that doesn’t make the technology irrelevant.
no. dead kids are not “political”… they are dead.
sorry that study is in german, but the author would have been killed in second world countries like the US for speaking out loud.
there is not one reactor on the planet that is safe or did not kill ppl. not one.
Did I miss something or are we moving the goalposts from dirty to hazardous?
The average operating age of nuclear plants in Germany was 30+ years old. Yes they’re not built to modern safety standards. Yes, operating with radioactive materials is more dangerous than not doing that. But they still ended with a minimal impact to climate change over their lifetime.
If you want sensational claims about energy saftey you can write a whole expose about working conditions in Xinjiang, which produces 45% of all of solar grade polysilicone. Are those deaths less important because they didn’t happen in your neighborhood?
So yes, it’s political because a handful of human deaths override an energy technology that is, mathematically, one of the best tools to save our planet. Throwing away nuclear energy because people can get preventable cancer is like throwing away wind energy because an aluminum blade can drop on your head.
interesting perspective. those lives you are willing to sacrifice; tell me more. can that shit be build in your backyard and stored for a million years? go water plants with mountain dew.
It’s very telling that you think I should be more concerned about my backyard and neighbors rather than the billions of people who will suffer while we try to dig our way out of this pit with more palatable tech that can’t do the whole job.
Also funny that you think having a radioactive hole in the ground that loses the majority of its potency in less than 100 years is too high a price to keep our planet habitable. I’d rather be relocated out of my neighborhood than deal with billions of climate refugees moving in. Your NIMBY-ass logic is why our planet is fucked.
yawn. i still see no reason or argument
nuclear energy was 2% of all electricity before my country phased out. poor or stupid countries might be able to convince their ppl that this cant be substituted. 2 fucking percent. that is nothing.
dunno where your brain was when you shifted to rich people…but especially if you do no like oligarchs you should be against nuclear. they hardly create jobs but big revenue for the owner.
please wake up from your feverdream
as much as we all hate belgium for pretending to be a country, we should hate them for their rotten powerplants. the amount of people that “dislike” belgium is increasing fast in germany.
Nuclear shills out in full force again today, eh?
Lemmy seems 100% astroturfed by pro-nuclear lobbyists.
Fun fact: Multiple people with opinions different than yours are not automatically astroturfers or lobbyists. Turns out, different people have different opinions which they share on an open platform. Inevitably they’re going to end up disagreeing with you.
Nuclear being less efficient and more expensive than renewables is not an opinion.
Renewables needing expensive storage isn’t an opinion either.
We all want a clean, efficient, and reliable power grid. Renewables should be a big part, and I’d prefer not having a bunch of hydrocarbons being burned whenever renewables don’t even cover the base load.
What do people mean by “less efficient” in these conversations? Energy generated is energy generated, the number one efficiency we should talk about is using less of it. Past that you’re just choosing to optimize for cost, ecological impact, carbon footprint, etc…
So by that logic we should build energy sources that need the smallest input to get running. That’s not nuclear, hence the “less efficient”.
Again, efficiency is not the same thing as scalability. You’re optimizing for investment cost (maybe build time? I can’t tell). If we planned/regulated our usage better that’s irrelevant because power usage is predictable.
People won’t need more tomorrow than today unless they make a drastic change. If electricity isn’t cheap and elastic by default, they just won’t buy that high watt GPU or electric car. Bitcoin isn’t such an important social good that it needs instant access to a continent’s worth of power, but it gobbled it up because nobody stopped it.
And even if you do need account for something unpredictable, you can still adjust with other sources. That doesn’t mean they need to be the foundation of your whole grid.
