this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
252 points (98.5% liked)

World News

46643 readers
2470 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Air and wind are inexpensive insofar as they have a low LCOE, but are intermittent, so require being coupled with energy storage, and that is not inexpensive.

If you're talking hydropower or geothermal, then they don't have the intermittency issue (well, hydro does, but to a far lesser degree), but both are subject to the geography of the area. They aren't available to everyone.

EDIT: And in the case of hydropower, there are also some environmentalists unhappy about the impact on river systems, since dams inevitably have at least some impact on river ecosystems, even if you build those fish channels.

EDIT2: "Fishway" or "fish ladder".

EDIT3: In fairness, for some uses, intermittency isn't such a big issue. That is, you may have an industrial process that you can only run when energy is available. So, for example, the Netherlands used to do this (sans electricity) with their windpumps in the process of poldering. That's not free


if you want your pumps to run only a third of the time on average, then you need triple the pumping capacity


but for some things like that, where the process is basically the pumping side of pumped hydrostorage, it might be cheaper than providing constant operation with a non-intermittent power source.

But for an awful lot of uses, people just want electricity to be available when they flip the switch.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Air and wind are inexpensive insofar as they have a low LCOE, but are intermittent, so require being coupled with energy storage, and that is not inexpensive.

First, AIR and wind?

Second, yes they are intermittent but that's not an argument in favour of nuclear. Pairing intermittent sources and sources that need to run at full power 24/7 to be economic isn't a good match.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Solar and wind, sorry.

Second, yes they are intermittent but that's not an argument in favour of nuclear.

Sure it is. It's just not an argument in favor of using nuclear as a peaking source to fill in the gaps for solar and wind intermittency.