And next door Germany got rid of their nuclear plants.
What a brilliant idea. /s
Good for them. Our stupid government builds gas plants while we have a gas shortage.
Thanks, Rutte!
They will stall this and cancel after the next election.
I understand that the cost of Nuclear power is high – but it is cleaner than the alternatives, and more reliable as we’re building more reliable green sources.
Is the argument that you can use the money to build more wind/solar farms? Will more wind/solar farms really help when there is no wind or sunlight? Would more farms help with the energy crisis this year? I want to be weaned off Nuclear and go all green but we do need a reliable base production right? I think it works to bridge a gap to minimise disruptions, because once there is disruptions in energy supply it’s the poorest that got hit the most.
Edit: thanks to all contributors below. It’s a super interesting topic
That’s very ambitious to have them running by 2030 …
Seriously for new nuclear plants it’s too late now. Just look how long the average nuclear plant took to build. Basically none were below 10 years.
Since they need them running in 2030 when:
> The government will also aim for all new cars to be zero-emissions by 2030 and will increase its air ticket tax.
This will increase the electricity consumption even more. And they maybe even have to import dirty coal from Germany, then.
>Daarnaast zet dit kabinet de benodigde stappen voor de bouw van 2 nieuwe
kerncentrales. Dat betekent onder andere dat wij marktpartijen faciliteren bij hun verkenningen, innovaties ondersteunen, tenders uitzetten, de (financiële) bijdrage van de overheid bezien, wet- en regelgeving waar nodig in orde maken. Ook zorgen we voor veilige, permanente opslag van kernafval.
The government will *facilitate* private companies who want to build them (studies on geology, ‘right of way’ for transmission and roads, waste storage, ‘fix’ applicable laws, stuff).
Good, always nice to have more Options to purchase Power from the Neighbours.
This is about 15 years too late. It takes a long time to build these things. Plans need to be made, location, people hired, funding, the actual construction itself. People will protest (because of dumb anti nuclear sentiment).
As with everything, our politicians are not forward thinking, and only start when energy prices are at an all time high with Russia threatening to cut our gas off.
At this point with advances in renewables it might not even be worth it anymore. I forsee a 10 year planning phase after which the plans are scrapped because it’s simply not economically feasible with all the cheap solar and wind power available.
If only we had done this sooner.
I read that as ‘Neanderthals’ and wondered what I had missed.
More coffee please
France and the Netherlands are the two countries that Belgium pays the most attention to, and both are enthusiastically (re)embracing nuclear. I look forward to our Green clowns making ever-more intricate mental gymanistic to explain that *closing nuclear plants is green, actually*, and being ridiculed more and more easily every day.
Will they actually build it or cancel it? How long will it take? How much will it cost?
I’m taking bets.
Germany will not be happy with all these EU member states shifting towards nuclear.
Burning coal and importing gas from Russia will not be competitive compared to domestic nuclear power.
This will fail spectacularly, cost a lot of money and probably will become the downfall of a cabinet.
Does the Netherlands actually thing they can do this better than France and Finland?
2030? Hungary’s new rosatom-built nuclear plant has been in plans since 2014, construction *may* start next year and at earliest it will fire up in 2030, which is already seen unlikely date by many.
I wish all of EU would develop a common strategy to deal with energy security and then implement it.
if there’s a need for additional nuclear plants perhaps they could agree on the best technical solution, e.g. small modular reactors, then choose a single supplier for the whole EU, it would lead to substantial savings.
For solar invest billions in sub-Saharan Africa where there’s sun year around and build an infrastructure to transmit the electricity to Europe.
Can they do it in the next few weeks, we’re having a bit of an energy crisis right now.
>
The U.S. nuclear power industry is at an impasse. Since 2012, 11 of the 104 light-water reactors in operation at the time have closed, mainly as a result of aging infrastructure and the inability to compete with natural gas, wind and solar, which are now the cheapest sources of electricity in the U.S. and most other countries worldwide.
>One way the industry is trying to reverse the trend is by looking to what it likes to call “advanced” reactors. Despite the name, these designs are largely based on unproven concepts from more than 50 years ago. Unlike conventional light-water reactors, these rely on sodium or molten salt or gas for cooling, and their proponents claim they will be less expensive, safer and more secure than their predecessors. Some claim that these innovative devices will be ready for prime time by the end of this decade.
20 comments
And next door Germany got rid of their nuclear plants.
What a brilliant idea. /s
Good for them. Our stupid government builds gas plants while we have a gas shortage.
Thanks, Rutte!
They will stall this and cancel after the next election.
I understand that the cost of Nuclear power is high – but it is cleaner than the alternatives, and more reliable as we’re building more reliable green sources.
Is the argument that you can use the money to build more wind/solar farms? Will more wind/solar farms really help when there is no wind or sunlight? Would more farms help with the energy crisis this year? I want to be weaned off Nuclear and go all green but we do need a reliable base production right? I think it works to bridge a gap to minimise disruptions, because once there is disruptions in energy supply it’s the poorest that got hit the most.
Edit: thanks to all contributors below. It’s a super interesting topic
That’s very ambitious to have them running by 2030 …
Seriously for new nuclear plants it’s too late now. Just look how long the average nuclear plant took to build. Basically none were below 10 years.
Since they need them running in 2030 when:
> The government will also aim for all new cars to be zero-emissions by 2030 and will increase its air ticket tax.
This will increase the electricity consumption even more. And they maybe even have to import dirty coal from Germany, then.
[deleted]
The ‘coalition deal’ does not mention this, see (download link, in Dutch) https://www.kabinetsformatie2021.nl/documenten/publicaties/2021/12/15/coalitieakkoord-omzien-naar-elkaar-vooruitkijken-naar-de-toekomst
>Daarnaast zet dit kabinet de benodigde stappen voor de bouw van 2 nieuwe
kerncentrales. Dat betekent onder andere dat wij marktpartijen faciliteren bij hun verkenningen, innovaties ondersteunen, tenders uitzetten, de (financiële) bijdrage van de overheid bezien, wet- en regelgeving waar nodig in orde maken. Ook zorgen we voor veilige, permanente opslag van kernafval.
The government will *facilitate* private companies who want to build them (studies on geology, ‘right of way’ for transmission and roads, waste storage, ‘fix’ applicable laws, stuff).
Good, always nice to have more Options to purchase Power from the Neighbours.
This is about 15 years too late. It takes a long time to build these things. Plans need to be made, location, people hired, funding, the actual construction itself. People will protest (because of dumb anti nuclear sentiment).
As with everything, our politicians are not forward thinking, and only start when energy prices are at an all time high with Russia threatening to cut our gas off.
At this point with advances in renewables it might not even be worth it anymore. I forsee a 10 year planning phase after which the plans are scrapped because it’s simply not economically feasible with all the cheap solar and wind power available.
If only we had done this sooner.
I read that as ‘Neanderthals’ and wondered what I had missed.
More coffee please
France and the Netherlands are the two countries that Belgium pays the most attention to, and both are enthusiastically (re)embracing nuclear. I look forward to our Green clowns making ever-more intricate mental gymanistic to explain that *closing nuclear plants is green, actually*, and being ridiculed more and more easily every day.
Will they actually build it or cancel it? How long will it take? How much will it cost?
I’m taking bets.
Germany will not be happy with all these EU member states shifting towards nuclear.
Burning coal and importing gas from Russia will not be competitive compared to domestic nuclear power.
This will fail spectacularly, cost a lot of money and probably will become the downfall of a cabinet.
I don’t get it…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_4
Does the Netherlands actually thing they can do this better than France and Finland?
2030? Hungary’s new rosatom-built nuclear plant has been in plans since 2014, construction *may* start next year and at earliest it will fire up in 2030, which is already seen unlikely date by many.
I wish all of EU would develop a common strategy to deal with energy security and then implement it.
if there’s a need for additional nuclear plants perhaps they could agree on the best technical solution, e.g. small modular reactors, then choose a single supplier for the whole EU, it would lead to substantial savings.
For solar invest billions in sub-Saharan Africa where there’s sun year around and build an infrastructure to transmit the electricity to Europe.
Can they do it in the next few weeks, we’re having a bit of an energy crisis right now.
For people who claim nuclear is ‘better now’: [So-Called Next-Generation Nuclear Power Plants Are Being Oversold](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lsquo-advanced-rsquo-nuclear-reactors-don-rsquo-t-hold-your-breath/)
>
The U.S. nuclear power industry is at an impasse. Since 2012, 11 of the 104 light-water reactors in operation at the time have closed, mainly as a result of aging infrastructure and the inability to compete with natural gas, wind and solar, which are now the cheapest sources of electricity in the U.S. and most other countries worldwide.
>One way the industry is trying to reverse the trend is by looking to what it likes to call “advanced” reactors. Despite the name, these designs are largely based on unproven concepts from more than 50 years ago. Unlike conventional light-water reactors, these rely on sodium or molten salt or gas for cooling, and their proponents claim they will be less expensive, safer and more secure than their predecessors. Some claim that these innovative devices will be ready for prime time by the end of this decade.