Slashdot Mirror
Belgium To Give Up Nuclear Power
AmiMoJo writes "Belgium's political parties have reached a conditional agreement to shut down the country's two remaining nuclear power stations. Older reactors will be decommissioned by 2015, with the final closures happening before 2025. The exit is conditional on alternatives being available. 'If it turns out we won't face shortages and prices would not skyrocket, we intend to stick to the nuclear exit law of 2003,' a spokeswoman for Belgium's energy and climate ministry said."
Pretty hard with old reactors. You require something catastrophic to happen. Pretty close to impossible for new designs that use passive cooling systems.
Om, nomnomnom...
Belgium has quite a bit of a renewables coming online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Belgium#Renewable_energy
I'll be the last person to bash nuclear. New designs are safe, efficient, and cost effective. But once you put enough solar and wind generation out there, and back it with proper storage/buffering facilities (large battery/flywheel banks, pumped storage, etc), the argument is moot.
The price of solar is dropping so fast, solar businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Their loss is our gain, and you'll continue to see the price per watt of solar plummet. Wind is only getting more efficient, as gearboxes are being replaced with more efficient magnetic bearings and transfer systems:
http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/super-smooth-magnetic-bearings-glide-closer-to-the-mainstream.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25188/page1/
If you read my second link, you'll see GE is building 4 MW direct drive turbine systems. Yeah, 4 megawatts. As efficiency continues to scale up, you'll see windfarm nameplate capacity rival the largest coal and nuclear plants. Yes, yes, you'll still have to deal with generation peaks and valleys, but the energy is there for the taking!
Only France? The UK has affirmed it's stance that new reactors are needed and will be built...
I'm from Belgium and on my electric bill there is a list of energy sources from which my electricity is made of. Nuclear only has a 2% portion. Most of the energy comes from renewable energy. And that's even for the standard energy plan, and not the green energy plan, my provider is offering. Even the largest energy provider, Electrabel (which is in French hands: GDF Suez), only uses about 5% nuclear for their energy. Most people think of nuclear energy as being clean. And that's true as there is no emission of damaging gases or something. But what about the nuclear waste that has to be stored for a few thousands of years (although this is only a theoretical assumption). We can't keep shoving our problems into the ground and putting them off for later. It's time to start thinking of the future.
"but nobody has died from Fukushima"
By that same definition, people smoking tobacco and breathing in asbestos right now have not died, so those substances are perfectly safe, right? That argument has worked for those respective industries for a while. What are you going to do when people smarten up to the delayed incubation trick? Just move to the next talking point, I suppose . . .
"From JUST West Virginia"
Because we all know that every state has identical levels of coal mining . . . But, really, mining? Because we all know that there are absolutely no risks to uranium mining. Oh, and there are absolutely no additional risks to residents close to uranium mines that residents close to coal mines don't have to worry about . . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!