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.

      • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

          • stickly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            57 minutes ago

            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…

          • Lemzlez@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            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.

        • torrentialgrain@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Ah yes “common sense”, the go to argument from everyone ranging from people who want to throw out migrants to nuclear shills.

          After all, why wouldn’t we burn billions on a technology that is less efficient per kw/h, takes decades longer to build, doesn’t scale, has a worse LCOE than renewables and leaves us with toxic forever waste? It’s just common sense bro.

          • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 minutes ago

            leaves us with toxic forever waste?

            Not enough to be relevant

            doesn’t scale,

            Scale is just how much you build

            less efficient per kw/h,

            Continuous power generation.

            takes decades longer to build

            We could build it faster if we were willing

          • stickly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            49 minutes ago

            “After all, why wouldn’t we burn billions on a technology that requires destructive mining and large scale plastic waste production for a worse climate footprint? What a solar shill”

            See, I too can make emotionally charged statements with no basis in reality. All energy solutions have more nuance than “radiation bad” or “cheap good”