Belgium without nuclear energy? not for our generation..

Belgium is not Japan but a nuclear disaster is never to be excluded. the question whether we should close our plants soon is hovering around once again like nuclear particles in the air.[Nieuwsblad]

The debate between several parties about nuclear energy has reared his ugly head once again . however neither of the two sides can really give hard prove their wright, that is because the future cannot be predicted. It’s a good thing that the disaster in Fukushima leads to a reopening of the debate of future energy but Belgium cannot be compared to Japan. As I said in my previous post, the Japanese engineers have made some mistakes with horrible consequences due to misplaced confidence. So these shouldn’t be generalized .Better yet,it should be taken into account. Supporters of nuclear energy said that the industry safety has changed since Chernobyl. Instead of taking drastic measures like closing down old plants we should invest in optimizing the safety of these plants.

1 in 10 nuclear plants are situated in Japan , by far the most earthquake prone nation in the world. A more urgent question here is ; was this smart FOR JAPAN.

As Ben has said, this disaster has lead to the closure of 7 power plants in Germany. If every country panics and closes down his plants a huge energy shortage will not only occur for Belgium ( who is very depended on imported nuclear energy) but for whole Europe.

So what will be the alternative for the loss of our nuclear plants? Some people are asking for more green energy like windenergy or solarenergy but all the energy produced by these sources can’t even replace the energy of one small reactor, so what is left? If we stay on the track that the small plants have to shut down in 3 years we have to fill this gap with gas. That is the only viable solution proposed at the moment for a quick replacement of nuclear plants. But wouldn’t this be taking a step back? The replacement of one source with a flaw by another source with another flaw that will conduct to the greenhouse effect.

Say we do chose for the latter, once again we’ll be dependant on other countries. Russia and the Middle East. Russia has already proven that it isn’t afraid to cut off the supply ( see Ukraine). The Middle east is very unstable right now with a war threatening.

So with what options are we left? I say we start looking for safer plants, don’t eliminate but optimize.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Belgium without nuclear energy? not for our generation..

  1. inatheunis says:

    In addition to this post , I found an article relating to the improvement of nuclear safety;’ MYRRHA’.

    In 2007 the European Commission decided to invest in carbonfree technology which would help us reach the Kyoto goals and would provide us of an energy independency. This plan did not only contain the investment in green energy(resp. wind – and solarenergy) but also a plan to exploit sustainable nuclear energy.
    The Belgian Nuclear Research Centre in Mol has been working on the development of a multi-purpose irradiation facility in order to replace the ageing BR2-reactor, which has been operating since 1962, MYRRHA.

    MYRRHA is an accelerator driven system able to operate in sub-critical and critical modes. MYRRHA is basically a particle accelerator that can produce more energy out of lesser nuclear fuel, it’s more efficient and therefore produces less nuclear waste with a shorter life. This accelerator is a huge step for R&D as it will serve mainly for the research of nuclear waste and safer fusion and fission.

  2. benvandoninck says:

    I totally agree with your statement: “Don’t eliminate, but optimize”.

    I think we all agree these two statements:

    First of all, we can not live without nuclear power in these days (especially Belgium). The plants can not be closed if there aren’t the right alternatives.

    Secondly, we are all favor green energy sources and technologies. I think no person can ever be against green energy. But these technologies are not efficient enough (nowadays) and there are to little of these to compensate the possible loss of nuclear power.

    In addition I like to say the following. If we want to invest in new technologies (or as mentioned in previous posts, ‘greener’ solutions), I think we forget what is said in the first post of this blog “harnessing nuclear fusion”. Of course it is good to invest in greener technologies, but we may not exclude the other nuclear power source: nuclear fusion. Fusion will be the most efficient and safe way to produce energy. So I would say: if the government invest in newer technologies, please don’t forget to invest in nuclear fusion. Once we know how fusion works and once we are capable of producing energy this way, I am sure we have found the best way to produce green and safe power.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s