4 ms·

This doesn't seem like a terribly great idea, for several reasons. Belgium is nearly bankrupt, with a government deficit that the EU is already giving us grief

by elric 6mo ago

This doesn't seem like a terribly great idea, for several reasons. Belgium is nearly bankrupt, with a government deficit that the EU is already giving us grief for, in spite of some of the highest tax rates in the world. That same government hasn't exactly managed any of its semi-public companies particularly well: the national telco is for shit, postal service is nearly bankrupt, railways are mismanaged and underfunded, etc. The reactors in question have been shut down by virtue of being too old (1974, 1975, 1982, 1985). Some of them have cracks in the reactor vessels. Maintenance has been lacking. There was also a case of sabotage which was never resolved. Meanwhile Belgium has a lot of off-shore wind power in the north sea, but lacks battery capacity and transmission lines. Spending money on that would likely be a much better investment.

NeutralForest 6mo ago
It's fine to shit on things but I have service almost everywhere and I take the train often with usually few issues aside from works on the tracks. Let's not blow up issues, it takes away from what we should focus on.
- seszett 6mo ago
  Well... there are worse places than Belgium for sure, and as a foreign citizen who has been living in Belgium for about a decade I think it's a reasonably well functioning country for west European standards, but I wouldn't use either SNCB/NMBS as an acceptable example as I'm not sure I have even had a single train be on time in the last few years (well I don't take the train much anymore for obvious reasons, but I still have to do it a few times a year) and cell service is absolutely not as good as it should be for such a small and dense country. And my experience is only with Flanders which is basically one large city, I can only imagine how it is in the less populated areas of Wallonia or Limburg. But I absolutely think that nuclear is a good option for such a small and dense country. Taking over the plants as they are nearly decommissioned is a stupid move though, but you can't expect anything sensible from this government.
  - NeutralForest 6mo ago
    That's fair, I have plenty of international coworkers and I think (and from what I hear from them), that Belgium is decently welcoming, at least in large cities. I do take the train quite often as I said, anything on large axes is usually fine (Brussels - Charleroi, Brussels - Antwerp, etc) but yeah smaller lines are usually struggling some more. I wish we had more ambitious governments in general, not only in terms of energy but also in the (bio)tech scene, which used to be touted as our great strength (we do have a lot of pharma companies though).
  - elric 6mo ago
    Agreed. Running ancient nuclear power plants in one of the most densely populated countries does not seem wise. These plants have been running with phase-out in mind for the last 20 years.
ramon156 6mo ago
> Belgium is nearly bankrupt can anyone jumpstart me on this, since when is belgium bankrupt?
- fazgha 6mo ago
  I had the same thought. Even we have a high debt ratio (near 107% of GDP), we can still pay this debt.
  - peterfirefly 6mo ago
    If you want to. Like Italy and France, there is no sign visible from the outside that you are.
    - teamonkey 6mo ago
      They’ve not been defaulting on government bonds, therefore they’re paying the debt.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > since when is belgium bankrupt? It's not. Belgium is rated investment grade by all three agencies [1]. The cost to insure its debt implies a <2% chance of default in the next 5 years [2], lower than America [3]; the IMF assesses its "overall risk of sovereign stress...as moderate" [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating#Fitch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_ra... [2] https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/cds-historical-data/belgium/5-years/ https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/cds-historical-data/bel... [3] https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/cds-historical-data/united-states/5-years/ https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/cds-historical-data/uni... [4] https://www.imf.org/en/-/media/files/publications/cr/2025/english/1belea2025001-print-pdf.pdf https://www.imf.org/en/-/media/files/publications/cr/2025/en...
- hylaride 6mo ago
  Bankrupt is a politically loaded term, but they have very high debt and taxes, political gridlock (it is very divided among French and Flemish linguistic lines, plus all the other traditional left/right polarization), and it is all but impossible to make reforms. IIRC there was no sitting government for 500 days at some point. It's also got all the classic problems of an aging population. Belgium is a curious country that was formed via historical quirks around religion (many Flemish/Dutch speaking catholics not wanting to be part of protestant Netherlands, but that is a gross oversimplification and the history is very complex - read up on wikipedia if curious). Historically the Flemish were the poorer part of the country, but after deindustrialization the story flipped as most of the industry was in the French parts. The result is bitterness that holds the whole country back.
enricotal 6mo ago
Belgium’s government might not be in its best shape. But still the logical conclusion in my humble opinion isn’t “let’s shutting down the one power source that actually works.” Nuclear it’s still the densest, most reliable zero-carbon option they have. Keeping the existing plants running (and ideally extending their life properly) is far cheaper and faster than hoping wind + batteries will replace dispatchable power. At some point reality has to trump ideology. Belgium seems to be slowly waking up to that. The deficit is real, but blackouts and intermittent electricity production prices are also real — and usually more politically painful.
modo_mario 6mo ago
>Some of them have cracks in the reactor vessels. If I remember well those microfissures were detected with methods nobody else anywhere felt the need to use and were probably there since their construction (and in any similar vat across the world) nor do they pose any realistic big risk. >Meanwhile Belgium has a lot of off-shore wind power in the north sea, but lacks battery capacity and transmission lines. Spending money on that would likely be a much better investment. You also know it would be a lot lot more expensive which is why the minister that ran the ordeal mentioned before was instead negotiating for a number of gas plants with decades long profit guarantees.
Orygin 6mo ago
> That same government hasn't exactly managed any of its semi-public companies particularly well: the national telco is for shit, postal service is nearly bankrupt, railways are mismanaged and underfunded, etc. In fairness, it's not the same gov that nuked the public service than the one in power now. But on the flip side, the selloff of public services to private sector was a success and achieved the stated goals: Destroy it from the inside and use that as an excuse for more liberalization.

by elric 6mo ago

NeutralForest 6mo ago

It's fine to shit on things but I have service almost everywhere and I take the train often with usually few issues aside from works on the tracks. Let's not blow up issues, it takes away from what we should focus on.

seszett 6mo ago
Well... there are worse places than Belgium for sure, and as a foreign citizen who has been living in Belgium for about a decade I think it's a reasonably well functioning country for west European standards, but I wouldn't use either SNCB/NMBS as an acceptable example as I'm not sure I have even had a single train be on time in the last few years (well I don't take the train much anymore for obvious reasons, but I still have to do it a few times a year) and cell service is absolutely not as good as it should be for such a small and dense country. And my experience is only with Flanders which is basically one large city, I can only imagine how it is in the less populated areas of Wallonia or Limburg. But I absolutely think that nuclear is a good option for such a small and dense country. Taking over the plants as they are nearly decommissioned is a stupid move though, but you can't expect anything sensible from this government.
- NeutralForest 6mo ago
  That's fair, I have plenty of international coworkers and I think (and from what I hear from them), that Belgium is decently welcoming, at least in large cities. I do take the train quite often as I said, anything on large axes is usually fine (Brussels - Charleroi, Brussels - Antwerp, etc) but yeah smaller lines are usually struggling some more. I wish we had more ambitious governments in general, not only in terms of energy but also in the (bio)tech scene, which used to be touted as our great strength (we do have a lot of pharma companies though).
- elric 6mo ago
  Agreed. Running ancient nuclear power plants in one of the most densely populated countries does not seem wise. These plants have been running with phase-out in mind for the last 20 years.

ramon156 6mo ago

> Belgium is nearly bankrupt can anyone jumpstart me on this, since when is belgium bankrupt?

fazgha 6mo ago
I had the same thought. Even we have a high debt ratio (near 107% of GDP), we can still pay this debt.
- peterfirefly 6mo ago
  If you want to. Like Italy and France, there is no sign visible from the outside that you are.
  - teamonkey 6mo ago
    They’ve not been defaulting on government bonds, therefore they’re paying the debt.
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> since when is belgium bankrupt? It's not. Belgium is rated investment grade by all three agencies [1]. The cost to insure its debt implies a <2% chance of default in the next 5 years [2], lower than America [3]; the IMF assesses its "overall risk of sovereign stress...as moderate" [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating#Fitch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_ra... [2] https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/cds-historical-data/belgium/5-years/ https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/cds-historical-data/bel... [3] https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/cds-historical-data/united-states/5-years/ https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/cds-historical-data/uni... [4] https://www.imf.org/en/-/media/files/publications/cr/2025/english/1belea2025001-print-pdf.pdf https://www.imf.org/en/-/media/files/publications/cr/2025/en...
hylaride 6mo ago
Bankrupt is a politically loaded term, but they have very high debt and taxes, political gridlock (it is very divided among French and Flemish linguistic lines, plus all the other traditional left/right polarization), and it is all but impossible to make reforms. IIRC there was no sitting government for 500 days at some point. It's also got all the classic problems of an aging population. Belgium is a curious country that was formed via historical quirks around religion (many Flemish/Dutch speaking catholics not wanting to be part of protestant Netherlands, but that is a gross oversimplification and the history is very complex - read up on wikipedia if curious). Historically the Flemish were the poorer part of the country, but after deindustrialization the story flipped as most of the industry was in the French parts. The result is bitterness that holds the whole country back.

enricotal 6mo ago

Belgium’s government might not be in its best shape. But still the logical conclusion in my humble opinion isn’t “let’s shutting down the one power source that actually works.” Nuclear it’s still the densest, most reliable zero-carbon option they have. Keeping the existing plants running (and ideally extending their life properly) is far cheaper and faster than hoping wind + batteries will replace dispatchable power. At some point reality has to trump ideology. Belgium seems to be slowly waking up to that. The deficit is real, but blackouts and intermittent electricity production prices are also real — and usually more politically painful.

modo_mario 6mo ago

>Some of them have cracks in the reactor vessels. If I remember well those microfissures were detected with methods nobody else anywhere felt the need to use and were probably there since their construction (and in any similar vat across the world) nor do they pose any realistic big risk. >Meanwhile Belgium has a lot of off-shore wind power in the north sea, but lacks battery capacity and transmission lines. Spending money on that would likely be a much better investment. You also know it would be a lot lot more expensive which is why the minister that ran the ordeal mentioned before was instead negotiating for a number of gas plants with decades long profit guarantees.

Orygin 6mo ago

> That same government hasn't exactly managed any of its semi-public companies particularly well: the national telco is for shit, postal service is nearly bankrupt, railways are mismanaged and underfunded, etc. In fairness, it's not the same gov that nuked the public service than the one in power now. But on the flip side, the selloff of public services to private sector was a success and achieved the stated goals: Destroy it from the inside and use that as an excuse for more liberalization.