Skip to main content

Professor Takes Issue with Greenpeace Estimates in Belgium

In Belgium, the local chapter of Greenpeace is calling on the government to close that nation's nuclear power plants earlier than scheduled.

Luckily, not everyone is buying it. One professor ran the numbers, and had this to say:
Professor Jacques De Ruyck, specialist in renewable energy, disagrees with the reasoning that Greenpeace puts forward to encourage the closing of the old nuclear power plants. The oldest nuclear power plants are producing just a small share of the electric energy we use, he says. Meanwhile, Greenpeace is not taking the rising demand for electricity into account. Instead, they estimate that the consumer will cut down on usage by 2.5 to 3 percent a year. “That gigantic percentage is unrealistic”, De Ruyck says.

If we try to both decrease our CO2 production and close the nuclear plants, we may face serious shortages. Electricity will become five times more expensive, De Ruyck says.
Currently, nuclear energy accounts for 55 percent of Belgium's electricity. Meanwhile, the Belgian Entrepreneurs Union has already asked the government to build a new nuclear power plant.

Comments

Matthew66 said…
I predict that Belgium will continue to derive the vast majority of its electricity from nuclear power. The only question is whether the nuclear power stations are located in Belgium, where they will pay Belgian taxes and enhance the Belgian economy, or whether they will be located in France, paying French taxes and enhancing the French economy.
Joffan said…
I wonder how many of those 255 "clean energy projects" that Greenpeace is advocating are gas-fired cogeneration. Elsewhere I've seen that the classic renewable schemes have the potential to address only about 3-4% of Belgium's 2020 electricity requirements.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…