Belgium restarts ageing Tihange 1 nuclear reactor

December 27, 2015
Belgium's Tihange nuclear plant, with its three reactors, has been the subject of protests from environmentalists and others who
Belgium's Tihange nuclear plant, with its three reactors, has been the subject of protests from environmentalists and others who fear the reactors are too old to be operated safely

Belgian power utility Electrabel said Saturday it had restarted a nuclear reactor at its ageing Tihange plant, just days after being forced to shut it down following a fire in the electricity supply system.

An Electrabel spokesman said the Tihange 1 reactor was put back on line as scheduled and would be running at full power in due course.

Last week's shutdown of the reactor was "normal procedure" after such a fire, the company said previously.

Tihange 1 is the oldest of three at the plant, about an hour's drive southwest of Brussels, and began service in 1975.

It was meant to be closed completely in 2015 but the government decided in 2012 to keep it running until 2025 to help ensure electricity supplies while other are developed.

Environmentalists, especially in neighbouring Germany which is phasing out nuclear power, have criticised extending the life of Belgium's reactors, which they say are too old to be considered safe.

Belgium has suffered a series of nuclear mishaps in recent years, with three of the country's seven reactors closed at one point, in two cases due to the discovery of micro-cracks in the reactor vessels.

Overnight Thursday, Electrabel was forced to halt another reactor at its Doel plant near the northern city of Antwerp, only days after it was restarted following a 21-month shutdown.

The company said at the time it expected to resume operation of the Doel 3 reactor "within a few days."

An Electrabel spokeswoman said Saturday that the Doel 1 reactor, halted since early this year and which was supposed to have been restarted on Sunday, will now come on line on Thursday instead.

Such slippage in estimated dates was "normal," she added.

Explore further: Experts okay restart of worrisome Belgian nuclear plants

Related Stories

Belgium reveals artificial island plan for wind energy

January 20, 2013

(Phys.org)—Belgium is to build an artificial island made of sand three km off the Belgian coast. This will be a doughnut-shaped structure designed to store wind energy once the plan gets a final go-ahead. This North Sea ...

Recommended for you

Computer engineers boost app speeds by more than nine percent

September 26, 2016

Researchers from North Carolina State University and Samsung Electronics have found a way to boost the speed of computer applications by more than 9 percent. The improvement results from techniques that allow computer processors ...

Hyperloop pushes dream of low-cost futuristic transport

September 23, 2016

Is it a plane, is it a train? No, say supporters of Hyperloop, a futuristic mode of transport floated by Silicon Valley billionaire Elon Musk that promises high-tech, high-speed and cheap travel over long distances.

First test of driverless minibus in Paris Saturday

September 24, 2016

The French capital's transport authority will on Saturday carry out its first test of a driverless minibus, in the hope that regular routes for the hi-tech vehicles will be up and running within two years.

13 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2015
"Such slippage in estimated dates was "normal," she added. "
------------------------------
Yeah, and those "microcracks" heal themselves, too, I'll bet. These money-hungry fools are playing with the health and lives of others.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2015
Neutron Embrittlement.

No problem for any other power source.

How many more nuclear disasters will it take before we stand up to Big Money?
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2015
How many more nuclear disasters
Hilarious is that even taking into account all nuclear incidents, nuclear power is proven to cause fewer fatalities than wind/solar per gigawatt produced.
"Ironically enough, however, solar power is far more dangerous than nuclear, even in a year when an accident like the disaster at Fukushima occurs."
http://asiancorre...r-panels
http://www.windby...ety.html
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2015
Willie, if a PV installer hurts himself, it is himself. When a nuke engineer makes a mistake it is TMI II, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.
Lord_jag
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2015
How many fatalities in servicing all those extreme high voltage transmission lines are not included with nuclear deaths? They all part of the system.

A system that rooftop solar doesn't require.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2015
Within a few years, we should have another nuclear disaster. Will that stop it?

Nope. Big Money wins until everybody dies.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2015
Within a few years, we should have another nuclear disaster. Will that stop it?
Nope. Big Money wins until everybody dies.
Fear-monger priests are praying with all their faith for another nuclear incident because Fukushima was not a disaster after all, no one has died from radiation, a deception for them; faith, gskam; Whoops! wind/solar with more cases of leukemia/cancer, verified data and statistics showing us that solar/wind is more unsafe and harmful than nuclear per terawatt-hour.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2015
Fear mongers?

Two words defeat everything you can cut and paste, Willie:

CHERNOBYL CHILDREN

Google them.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2015
If everybody saw the results of nuclear power gone bad, as with the pictures of the children of Pripyat, we would have all nukes torn down now.

Look it up: Chernobyl children.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2015
CHERNOBYL CHILDREN
Chernobyl Children are luckier than those in Germany (wind/solar backed by coal power plants).
"For every TWh there is an average of 0.074 deaths from nuclear power while there are 77 deaths from coal power plants."
"There are only 50 confirmed deaths from radiation from the accident." "if the power plant would have been a coal power plant instead of a nuclear power plant the population of Chernobyl could have expected around 17 000 deaths."
"Even with the Chernobyl catastrophe about four times more people could be expected to have died if the nuclear power plant had been a coal power plant instead"
"Coal has even higher emissions of radioactive material compared to nuclear power." As well rare-earth metals used by renewables.
http://anglesonen...om/?p=63

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2015
Coal plants do not melt down, Willie.

Did you look it up, like I suggested, or are you too scared to do it?

CHERNOBYL CHILDREN

The pictures, Willie, . . . the pictures.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2015
Did you look it up, like I suggested, or are you too scared to do it?
Scaremongering tactics based on myths, beliefs and fictional data. By the way, look it up: children killed by dog. Dogs kill much more children than radiation.
http://i3.mirror....bite.jpg
The pictures, . . . the pictures.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2015
I have seen dog bites, Willie. Have you seen the pictures of Chernobyl children?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.