A decent short overview of the nuclear exit with the benefit of hindsight.
>[…]TIJD VERKWANSELD
Natuurlijk is die uitkomst wrang voor Groen. De kernuitstap is hun wens. Maar alle andere partijen hebben bijna twintig jaar de tijd gehad om de exit af te wenden. Die tijd is verkwanseld, met name door de MR van Bouchez, die in de cruciale, vorige regeerperiode met Marie-Christine Marghem zelfs de, weliswaar hoogst onbekwame, minister van Energie leverde.
>“Met al deze maatregelen engageert de regering zich tot het garanderen van de bevoorradingszekerheid, de betaalbaarheid en de duurzaamheid van energie op korte en lange termijn zodat ze de kernuitstap van de huidige generatie reactoren in 2025 kan realiseren.” Zo staat het te lezen in het federale regeerakkoord dat MR (!), N-VA (!!), Open Vld en CD&V in 2014 met elkaar sloten. 2014 is ook het jaar waarin Poetin de Krim annexeerde en de Oekraïne-crisis startte. Toen was dat blijkbaar geen argument. Hoe vreemd.
> demorgen.be
No surprise.
* Solar has killed 10x the amount nuclear has, and nuclear kills less than wind.
* Nuclear is reliable and therefore vital as long as batteries suck ass (which could be long)
* Nuclear may be more eco friendly than solar + batteries, I know solar production is bad for the environment, and so will the gazillion required batteries be, but I don’t have an actual comparison with specific numbers.
* Wind takes up way more space, you’re not allowed to build within X radius and you know, this country has a high pop density, and therefore necessity for space. It’s also ugly and ruins a good nature landscape but that’s more of an aside.
* The IPCC literally advocates more use of nuclear energy
> To achieve the goal of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2100, the four IPCC model pathways conclude that nuclear generation must increase by:
+59-106% by 2030
+98-501% by 2050
+501% by 2050 for pathway P3
its verry simple we need nuclear that is the easy version znd the make youwarm version. We desperatly need more nuclear is the reality
Not sure why people keep pretending as if it was only the greens who wanted this. They weren’t sole rulers of Belgium, there were plenty of other parties involved and a majority voted yes and then the majority across multiple governments did absolutely nothing to overturn it.
The best we got was an extension on the newer reactors, nothing else.
4 comments
A decent short overview of the nuclear exit with the benefit of hindsight.
>[…]TIJD VERKWANSELD
Natuurlijk is die uitkomst wrang voor Groen. De kernuitstap is hun wens. Maar alle andere partijen hebben bijna twintig jaar de tijd gehad om de exit af te wenden. Die tijd is verkwanseld, met name door de MR van Bouchez, die in de cruciale, vorige regeerperiode met Marie-Christine Marghem zelfs de, weliswaar hoogst onbekwame, minister van Energie leverde.
>“Met al deze maatregelen engageert de regering zich tot het garanderen van de bevoorradingszekerheid, de betaalbaarheid en de duurzaamheid van energie op korte en lange termijn zodat ze de kernuitstap van de huidige generatie reactoren in 2025 kan realiseren.” Zo staat het te lezen in het federale regeerakkoord dat MR (!), N-VA (!!), Open Vld en CD&V in 2014 met elkaar sloten. 2014 is ook het jaar waarin Poetin de Krim annexeerde en de Oekraïne-crisis startte. Toen was dat blijkbaar geen argument. Hoe vreemd.
> demorgen.be
No surprise.
* Solar has killed 10x the amount nuclear has, and nuclear kills less than wind.
* Nuclear is reliable and therefore vital as long as batteries suck ass (which could be long)
* Nuclear may be more eco friendly than solar + batteries, I know solar production is bad for the environment, and so will the gazillion required batteries be, but I don’t have an actual comparison with specific numbers.
* Wind takes up way more space, you’re not allowed to build within X radius and you know, this country has a high pop density, and therefore necessity for space. It’s also ugly and ruins a good nature landscape but that’s more of an aside.
* The IPCC literally advocates more use of nuclear energy
> To achieve the goal of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2100, the four IPCC model pathways conclude that nuclear generation must increase by:
+59-106% by 2030
+98-501% by 2050
+501% by 2050 for pathway P3
its verry simple we need nuclear that is the easy version znd the make youwarm version. We desperatly need more nuclear is the reality
Not sure why people keep pretending as if it was only the greens who wanted this. They weren’t sole rulers of Belgium, there were plenty of other parties involved and a majority voted yes and then the majority across multiple governments did absolutely nothing to overturn it.
The best we got was an extension on the newer reactors, nothing else.