> Belgium

Belgium doesn't have coal plants.

Belgium's nuclear plants are/were scheduled to close because they've surpassed their initial lifespan. An extension was added but that has almost been surpassed as well. These are plants which have been in operation for 40-50 years.

Replacements aren't being build because they are "unsafe". They aren't being build because it's economically not viable to do so in a country like Belgium. Not at this moment in time, not in the past 20 to 30 years.

Belgium's major energy operators are also largely controlled by French energy conglomerates such as ENGIE.

At least for Germany this isn't true, both nuclear and coal are phased out with about the same end date.

it doesn't work quite like that, though; while nuclear is down to ~13%, a quarter of the german energy sector is still burning coal. in fact, the plan to shut down fossil fuels was hindered by (imo) the short-sighted view to curtail nuclear before it was necessary.

Coal is down from 45% in 2013 to 23% in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

During the same time, nuclear is down from 17% to 13%. https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&...

Still too little too late in my opinion, but one has a hard time arguing that nuclear plays a role here at all.

the point i was making was less that this speedup of nuclear draw down was problematic so much as the whole viewpoint that ending advancement of nuclear power as a whole. germany limiting the lifespan and new construction of nuclear power dates back to the early 2000s, fukushima just reset the timelines back to the original 2022 closing dates.

I find it quite amusing that Germany seems to be very anti-nuclear as a culture, yet they are right next door to France which has plenty of Nuclear power plants.

And many Germans absolutely loathe the French reactors. Especially because France loved to place many of them directly at the border to Germany. There were several news pieces over the past century where the condition of some of those reactors was questioned.

> condition of some of those reactors was questioned

The nuclear security agency in France is one of the toughest in the world, and is independent. They notably demand "current" state-of-the art security for all nuclear plants (vs. state-of-the-art at the time of building in the US, typically)

French nuclear plants typically never killed anyone (and will never), unlike German coal plants (which are at least partially responsible for the 22,000 coal-related premature deaths every year)

Nuclear energy is a very emotionally polluted debate (no pun intended), but facts tend to shows that this is the cleanest and safest energy.

Every country does that because there's a big circle around power plants that is in danger if something goes wrong. So as much as possible of that area preferably either be the sea or someone elses territory.

FTR Fessenheim has been shut down in 2020. As for Cattenom, it's still operating.

>both nuclear and coal are phased out with about the same end date [in Germany].

The future is uncertain, and I hope the German people don't suffer shortages of electricity as a result of these phase-outs.

Why would you not prioritize ending coal first??

Because Fukushima provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for politicians to go against the local energy giants without them being able to gain the upper hand in the inevitable fight about the narrative in the local media. This is all power politics.

We're not keeping coal in Belgium. The last coal mine in Belgium closed in 1992, the last coal power plant closed in 2016.

Yup, actually the Belgian government plans to close all nuclear plants real soon now, and replace them all with imported gas. This is beyond stupid on so many levels.

Would that be Russian gas they can then use as a bargaining chip?

Who knows. They plan to shut them off so quickly it may not even be possible to build the necessary gas plants (of course they promised to replace them "mostly" with solar and wind, which is a complete joke and would require at least a decade of building at full speed, not a mere couple of years).

Germany and Belgium have cultural hangups about nuclear that relate to the fact most Germans (and probably also Belgians) felt they'd be the first to die if there was a nuclear war. Not that this excuses them from being reasonable, of course, but it is worth keeping in mind just how occupied by the threat of nuclear annihilation many people in those countries were, and for how long.

I’m a fan of nuclear, and I suspect you’re right. The reasons people say they oppose even existing nuclear (cost, waste, safety) don’t usually pass scrutiny. I suspect it is primarily due to their association with nuclear weapons. It instills a pretty deep fear, which I don’t entirely blame them for. ...however it has pretty terrible health, environmental, and economic consequences to prioritize nuclear phase out over fossil fuels (especially coal).

The reason I'm against nuclear power is the human greed factor. See my past comment for more details and sources:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348520

I find none of this convincing. Industrial accidents happen with all thermal power plant types. And coal ash disposal has a worse track record than nuclear waste. (Coal ash being naturally radioactive!) And the aerosols produced from coal transport and burning are a continual problem of lung cancer.

Nuclear is remarkably well-regulated by comparison. I understand why people may want to get rid of it eventually, but compared to coal, it's sunshine and rainbows.

we are having way to ensure beter compliance. may be we need for to make nuclear executive responsible with jail time if requirements broken. certainly nuclear safety has more importance than sox compliance.

Until the ones who gain profit from nuclear power would also pay for an insurance that covers for the worst possible accident, I think you will have a hard time to argue for nuclear energy.