[https://www.hln.be/binnenland/nucleair-expert-vindt-verlenging-kerncentrales-geen-goed-idee-zou-u-in-een-vliegtuig-stappen-van-meer-dan-50-jaar-oud\~a9cf2c93/](https://www.hln.be/binnenland/nucleair-expert-vindt-verlenging-kerncentrales-geen-goed-idee-zou-u-in-een-vliegtuig-stappen-van-meer-dan-50-jaar-oud~a9cf2c93/)
The government now also wants to keep the oldest nuclear reactors in our country open longer. But is that safe? “It is not self-evident,” says emeritus professor of radiation protection Gilbert Eggermont (VUB). “The risk of a disaster is sometimes forgotten, but it is still there – also in our country.”
The retired professor has a long track record in the nuclear sector of our country. He was still director at the nuclear research center SCK in Mol and conducted research at UGent and VUB. After the disaster in Fukushima in 2011, he was very critical of nuclear emergency planning in our country. He still sits on the Supreme Health Council.
Why do you think the extension is not a good idea?
“We always extend the power stations by a block of ten years, in the United States they immediately go for 20 years. But you can already see there that they have to change their plans, for safety reasons or because they are no longer economically viable. That was also the case with the power station in Borssele in the Netherlands, which had to request state aid.”
At Tihange 2 there was much to do about the ‘hairline cracks’ that appeared – that power station closed permanently at the end of January. Isn’t there a risk that this will also happen at the other power stations?
“It is not correct to talk about cracks. It’s about hydrogen flakes in the steel – irregularities, simply put. 30 to 40 years ago, quality problems emerged in the Dutch steel industry that supplied material for Tihange 2. It was only much later, with newer measuring equipment, that this could be noticed. Compare it with ultrasound images of a pregnancy, which are also getting sharper. So after research with new technology, production errors have been noticed, but calculations show that this could under no circumstances lead to a rupture in the reactor vessel.”
“However, that is effectively a weakening. Partly because of this, it was decided to close these plants. However, in the power plants we are talking about today, other steel has been used. So there can be no such ‘hairline cracks’ here. What is possible – as is currently the case in France – is that problems with the welds in the steel of the reactors can occur, even in critical places. Such general problems can also arise here and that must be investigated preventively.”
15 comments
>*”Would you get on a plane that is more than 50 years old?”*
specifically a +50 years old plane, with micro “cracks” in the wings and loaded with a nuclear bomb that will put radiation in half Europe…
I don’t care if we use nuclear power or not. But they definitely should stop blocking every plan to replace these outdated plants because our politicians can’t agree on anything. And literally every party that was in a coalition in the past 30 years is to blame for this shit show.
This is a professor in radiation. Not in nuclear engineering and reactor technology. Several mistakes/bias in this
Ah yes an “expert”. Very respected academic title.
I better not catch his ass walking over any 50 year old bridges.
As an expert i can say the opposite.
I hope my wife still wants me when I am 50 years old. I think we need new plants.
if that plane had a complete check of all its parts? Then sure no problem
This is dumb. The reactor isn’t the same reactor it was 50 years ago. It’s a [Ship of Theseus.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)
Doet dien ouwen boecht dicht en zet er een paar van de nieuwe generatie. Die zijn veiliger en als ik mij niet vergis gebruiken die brandstof die ook minder controversieel is dan wat ze er nu in steken
If it was as maintained and checked as our nuclear power plants: yep. Just more fearmongering
It’s hilarious to see the number of armchair warriors in this thread arguing that a former director at the nuclear research center SCK in Mol and emeritus professor of radiation protection lacks expertise in nuclear safety.
It’s like covid all over again.
I actually pay more to get on warbirds that are 50 year old or older. They’re very well maintained and flown by passionate people who care. I’ve never experienced an unsafe situation contrary to general aviation flying modern planes.
I’m afraid this person’s knowledge on both planes and nuclear powerplants is limited. I’m sure he knows a lot about radiation but that doesn’t make him an authority in nuclear powerplants. And not that that matters an argument from authority is always a logical fallacy.
The error he makes here is assuming that the plants that are running today are still the same plants as 50 years ago. If that were true they would follow a bathtub like curve of reliability and safety. With safety improving in the first decades die to operating experience. And later deteriorating again due to ageing. Where this turnaround would actually be is hard to say as no plant runs without replacing and upgrading systems. In fact for nuclear plants it is a legal requirement that safety constantly improves as they get older. So not only have systems been replaced. They’ve also been upgraded and additional systems were added. Complete new buildings with additional safety systems even.
So no nuclear plants don’t get less safe as they get older, they get safer. Not by themself. But due to the constant replacement, upgrades and additions of safety systems and operating experience.
That being said I don’t think it’s financially worth it to keep Doel 1 and 2 open. The upgrades needed to meet the newest safety standards are immense. That’ll be extremely expensive and frankly we don’t have the manpower to make that happen.
For a short extension without upgrades like suggested by the minister only D4/Ti3/Ti1 are an option as they meet the newest standards already and are still running.
D3 and Ti2 have already been shut down so they cant be kept open for a short period of time. But I’d certainly prefer a full extension of atleast 10 years. In which case D3 and Ti2 would be a preferable choice over Ti1. But Ti1 is certainly worthwhile to look at to extend too. D1 and 2 aren’t.
its a lot safer to build new plants and shut down the old ones
I work in a chemical plant that’s older than any of the nuclear plants in Belgium. There are very few parts, if any, that are actually still there from the original plant. Basically every pipe and vessel is checked every 4-5 years and replaced if needed. Most parts have been replaced several times over the decades.