First Germany, now Belgium: Nuclear energy to be phased out by 2015

First Germany, now Belgium: Nuclear energy to be phased out by 2015

www.naturalnews.com

In the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, some countries have decided to rethink their energy policies and initiate moves towards safer energy alternatives. Following in the footsteps of Germany, the European nation of Belgium has reportedly decided to phase out its nuclear energy sector, beginning with the shutdown of three of its oldest reactors by 2015.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Back in March, Germany, the fourth-largest economy in the world, vowed to end its nuclear program by as early as 2020, and later revised that date to 2022 (www.bbc.co.uk...). Belgium now intends to do the same thing with its two nuclear power stations that together house seven nuclear reactors, by 2025.

BBC News reports that Belgian officials reached an agreement to shut down two older reactors at the nation's nuclear facility in Doel, as well as another older reactor at its Tihange plant, by 2015. From there, it will gradually phase out the remaining four reactors by 2025 which, together with the first three, currently generate 5,860 megawatts of power.

This is something that has been long overdue! If we learn anything from the Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima incident then it should be this..

We NEED to abolish nuclear power. It is not a quick or easy process in the slightest but it is definitely something that needs to be done. With escalating natural disasters (Yes natural disasters are actually increasing) this is a more important battle than ever.

More than enough damage has already been done, more damage is still to come and there are still more than enough nuclear power plants to wipe out most of the life on this planet. What Germany and Belgium are planning is brilliant news! I just hope it isn't too little too late.

Imagine all the nuclear power plants in the world going into meltdown...
Not good.

www.naturalnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by TechUnique


Sounds interesting from a conspiracy angle; there is a theory by (Dr Leuren Moret et al) that the Queen in the UK through the Rockefeller mining company owns huge uranium deposits - the uranium on its own is useless however, find an application for it (nuclear reactors), encourage other countries to invest in nuclear plants (which essentially boil water) and your looking at trillions of dollars of profit.

Wonder how this will play out?

www.youtube.com...

Wonder what are they going to replace the lost 6GW power output with? Coal? Oil? Thousands of wind turbines wherever the eye can see?

Or are they just going to buy it from foreign nuke plants?

What they need to do is come up with ideas on how to MAKE electricity, and not how NOT TO MAKE it. Until then, all this talking about getting rid of nuclear power is nothing more then political propaganda, which accomplishes nothing... except for maybe getting them a Nobel peace prize or something.

Nuclear is among the safest ways to generate electricity when you look at deaths per TWh produced, simply because it is so effective, and the safety has the potential to get even better in the future. The only thing this will lead to is more fossil fuels and higher energy prices for Belgium.

I also believe it is just a matter of time before nuclear is again reintroduced, safe or not, just because there wont be any other practical alternative when fossil fuels begin to run out and electricity demand skyrockets.

Originally posted by Naphariel
Wonder what are they going to replace the lost 6GW power output with? Coal? Oil? Thousands of wind turbines wherever the eye can see?

Or are they just going to buy it from foreign nuke plants?

What they need to do is come up with ideas on how to MAKE electricity, and not how NOT TO MAKE it. Until then, all this talking about getting rid of nuclear power is nothing more then political propaganda, which accomplishes nothing... except for maybe getting them a Nobel peace prize or something.

Well to be fair we would have had free energy by now if it weren't for the rich and greedy. If the richest people in the world wanted to make the world a better place for the people then they could. They could do it and still live like kings.

But they don't want to help the people or the planet, they want to dominate and extort us both.

reply to post by TechUnique


I have long wondered why they didn't implement free energy devices like the one Tesla was working on, and still charge us for the use of the energy, instead of using fossil fuels and coals and nuclear energy...

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
reply to post by TechUnique

 

I have long wondered why they didn't implement free energy devices like the one Tesla was working on, and still charge us for the use of the energy, instead of using fossil fuels and coals and nuclear energy...

I suppose that when there are more dangers and more work to be done then more money changes hands (often the same peoples hands) and the economy gets bigger. When I say the economy gets bigger I mean the fewer get richer.

Originally posted by Naphariel
Wonder what are they going to replace the lost 6GW power output with? Coal? Oil? Thousands of wind turbines wherever the eye can see?

Or are they just going to buy it from foreign nuke plants?

What they need to do is come up with ideas on how to MAKE electricity, and not how NOT TO MAKE it. Until then, all this talking about getting rid of nuclear power is nothing more then political propaganda, which accomplishes nothing... except for maybe getting them a Nobel peace prize or something.

The shortfall will be made up of dangerous explosive natural gas imported from Russia, coal dug out of enormous mines, and new nuclear capacity in Czech Republic and France. Oh, there might be some wind turbines built too, but that's not where the bulk of the replacement power will come from, at least, for several decades.

reply to post by TechUnique


If they want steam they just need to dig deep enough into the Earth. There is heat down there, in abundance.

Also we have the moon and tides, round the clock push/pull energy. I dare someone to utilize them!

I'm happy to see this day. I hope to see more articles like these.

One does wonder though, with all of the sudden rise in Nuclear emergencies, for those who watch RSOE more than they should, you can't help but feel the conspiracy side and ask the question of why they might really be needing to shut down all Nuclear technology (Including Irans reactors), and why they might be on this Oil crusade in the Middle East? Maybe they know something really big is on the way and is going to shake the Earth up something bad? The whole Planet would be poisoned by Nuclear power plants.

Maybe there's a reaction happening to the Japan reactors like gamma rays being burnt into the ground and igniting the Natural Gas layer underneath, like a certain Ukraine nuclear scientist suggested?

Also the Earthquake in Virginia that happened to be directly underneath a Nuclear Power plant.

All I know is something's up.

Thorium.

The God of Energy

reply to post by LightAssassin


*conspiracy hat on*

Maybe they want to demonise nuclear energy simply because it is capable of providing cheap, clean and abundant energy for all humanity - making oil obsolete just like "free energy", but contrary to "free energy" hoaxes, it is real. Why do you think all advanced reactor concepts like IFR or LFTR get neglected, if not outright sabotaged by politicians and regulatory agencies, as well as big nuclear companies? 60 years of nuclear energy and we still use mostly LWR reactors, despite better designs being on the table for many decades.

They tried to bury the molten salt reactor concept after the WW2, and almost succeeded, if not for Kirk Sorensen. Now, with the internet, too many people know about it, China is researching TMSR, and they are losing.. I would not be surprised if they purposely neglected Fukushima safety (despite many warnings) to aid their propaganda. The same with Chernobyl (caused by operators "error") - many advanced reactors got cancelled after it, despite having nothing in common with the Chernobyl reactor design. Ask yourself, who benefited from it?

reply to post by Maslo


All very possible scenarios.

Europe knows the world will soon get very very mad when they realize how many people will soon be dying of cancer from radiation emitted/polluted from nuclear reactors.


Heads will roll. Countries will be DEMANDING Reparations from countries with nuclear reactors.

Germany will be ahead of the ball. They will say "we have no nuclear reactors"........"go get your free money from Amerika"....

Originally posted by TechUnique

Back in March, Germany, the fourth-largest economy in the world, vowed to end its nuclear program by as early as 2020, and later revised that date to 2022 (www.bbc.co.uk...). Belgium now intends to do the same thing with its two nuclear power stations that together house seven nuclear reactors, by 2025.

BBC News reports that Belgian officials reached an agreement to shut down two older reactors at the nation's nuclear facility in Doel, as well as another older reactor at its Tihange plant, by 2015. From there, it will gradually phase out the remaining four reactors by 2025 which, together with the first three, currently generate 5,860 megawatts of power.

This is something that has been long overdue!

Imagine all the nuclear power plants in the world going into meltdown...
Not good.

www.naturalnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)

Imagine all the lights going out.
Imagine the sheeple going wild at no electricity.
Also not good.

Thought this was on point.

Imagine all the lights going out.
Imagine the sheeple going wild at no electricity.
Also not good.

I would rather that where you have a chance of surviving rather than all the nuclear reactors in the world going into meltdown around the same time.

Personally.

If Belgium wasn't so insistant on lighting the country up like a christmas tree full time they wouldn't need half of the energy they are wasting. Honestly they could cut down the number of street lights here by half and it'd still be considered excessive.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


You want Solar Power? We own the solar panel factories and needed resources.

Price of uranium and thorium is ridiculously low, by the way. Nuclear costs come mostly from the costly technology, not the fuels. In this regard, nuclear is similar to renewables.

reply to post by TechUnique

We NEED to abolish nuclear power. It is not a quick or easy process in the slightest but it is definitely something that needs to be done. With escalating natural disasters (Yes natural disasters are actually increasing) this is a more important battle than ever.

Because a field of wind turbines or solar panels coated in toxic chemicals are far safer to have at the epicenter of an earthquake or hurricane.

More than enough damage has already been done, more damage is still to come and there are still more than enough nuclear power plants to wipe out most of the life on this planet.

Perhaps you'd like to ground this claim in, at the very minimum, some display of the ability to rationalize.

What Germany and Belgium are planning is brilliant news! I just hope it isn't too little too late.

The reality is that these power plants were already scheduled for heavy maintenance procedures, anyway - procedures akin to shutting the plant down and building a new one (essentially what is done when it comes time to change out the entire reactor core - not to be confused with changing out the fuel/control rods).

Imagine all the nuclear power plants in the world going into meltdown...
Not good.

... Why is that a plausible scenario? Nuclear melt-down is the least of our worries if some kind of natural disaster is causing all of that to happen. It's like putting plastic-wrap over your furniture to try and keep the rain off of them while a hurricane is baring down on you.... not really something to be worried about, given the circumstances.

Well to be fair we would have had free energy by now if it weren't for the rich and greedy.

.
.
.
To be fair?

If the richest people in the world wanted to make the world a better place for the people then they could. They could do it and still live like kings.

Because there is some kind of ... handicap... the prevents you from improving the standard and quality of your own life? You are incapable of making it on your own, so you require a hand-out?

I am just giving you a fair perspective. I - because of technology and my drive to learn - know how to make just about every type of power plant known to exist (or, at the very minimum, how to find the specifics of some of the more finicky varieties like fuel cells). I also know plenty of people - rich and not rich - who have the capability to assist me in making any variety of them, at a cost that I could afford given a bit of planning and focus on my part (and I am at the lower end of the income spectrum).

I also know a fair number of wealthy people who don't like to mess with fixing their computer or learning how to do something that I do know how to do - and I am also more than willing to do it for them, if they are willing to part with some of their holdings.

This is turning into more of an economic point, however.

Now - I am not going to assume you meant "free energy" in terms of the many scams out there that claim you can get "energy from the vacuum" using a few magnets and a hamster wheel (which, unfortunately, most people are too uneducated in the world of physics/electricity to not be wowed by such simple displays of known mechanics that do not do what they are being advertised as...) but if you did - I'll be back to put that nonsense back where it belongs.

But they don't want to help the people or the planet, they want to dominate and extort us both.

It's really not that way, at all. You just like to think about it that way because it vindicates your baseless demonizing of other people.

For all your nature-talk and zen fetishism, you really don't seem to have a very balanced self-perspective. I do not mean that as an attack - I mean that as an analysis of your sentience (or, rather, lack thereof).