Belgian parliament scraps nuclear phaseout plan – DW – 05/15/2025
www.dw.com
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 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.

  • @Airowird@lemm.eeEnglish
    10•1 day ago

    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.
    • CethinEnglish
      3•12 hours ago

      The largest cost of nuclear power is safety. Both reactor & waste.

      But, like you said above, it’s actually one of the safest sources, even if you include disasters, which are very unlikely now that the technology is so much more mature. Unlike other power sources, their waste is easily accounted for and stored too, and in small quantities. Some of it can even be useful.

      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.

      This is largely due to regulations specifically designed to increase their costs above dirty energy sources. Those with money will always create barriers for competition, and that’s what dirty energy companies have done. There’s so many requirements for nuclear plants that other energy sources aren’t held back by. Coal can just spew radioactive waste into the air for free, and nuclear has to pay for the safe storage of their waste. Why? Waste for all energy should be paid for by those generating it so they have an incentive to reduce it and it makes all sources equal.