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.

  • Railison@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I mean, if the reactors are already built and have plenty of life left in them…

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Thats actually one of the problems. Yes, there are 2 reactors in the country but they are so old, they needed replacement… In 2002.
      Belgium does have the money/wants to invest in a new reactor because that costs billions but really, really, really should…

      Still, this is a step in the right direction

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      This is the key question. Eventually reactors wear out and need substantial refitting to live longer, and you’re then working on a highly irradiated structure.

      The UK hit this point with a number of reactors. Even though they had licenses to continue, reality struck and they had to be decommissioned. Of course, the reason for the extension of service was because no replacement plan was in effect. End result is the UK nuclear generation is slowly dying.

      …and that chart is missing 9 years. It’s now 5.9GWe.

    • Ziggurat@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      22 hours ago

      This stay, IMO, the big question mark. At which point does maintaining an aged machine is more expensive than building new one. Especially when 20 years are needed to build a new one (including 10 years of legal paperwork, trials and appeals)