Germany asks Belgium to shut two old nuclear plants

The nuclear power plant in Tihange, Belgium, is one of two in the country that Germany has asked to be temporarily shut down due
The nuclear power plant in Tihange, Belgium, is one of two in the country that Germany has asked to be temporarily shut down due to safety concerns

Germany asked neighbouring Belgium on Wednesday to temporarily shutter two ageing nuclear plants near their border over safety concerns.

Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks requested that the 40-year-old Tihange 2 and Doel 3 reactors be turned off "until the resolution of outstanding security issues".

The reactor pressure vessels at both sites have shown signs of metal degradation, raising fears about their safety. They were temporarily closed but resumed service last December.

The reactor at Tihange is located just 60 kilometres (40 miles) from the German border, while Doel is about 130 kilometres away, and close to Antwerp.

Hendricks pointed to a report by a German advisory body, the Reactor Safety Commission (RSK), and discussions between German and Belgian experts.

"The independent experts of RSK cannot confirm that the safety margins of Tihange 2 and Doel 3 can be maintained," she said in a statement.

"That is why I believe it is right to temporarily take the plants off-line, at least until further investigations have been completed."

Such a step would be "a strong precautionary measure" and "would show that Belgium takes the concerns of its German neighbours seriously," she said.

Belgium's creaking have been causing safety concerns for some time after a series of problems ranging from leaks to cracks and an unsolved sabotage incident.

The Doel and Tihange power stations have been in service since 1974-1975, and were scheduled to be shut down in 2015.

But the Belgian government in December decided to extend their lives to 2025, under a deal to preserve jobs and invest in the transition to cleaner energy.

Germany—where the public mood swung against following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster—decided after Japan's Fukushima meltdown five years ago to phase out nuclear power by 2022.

Germany in early March also demanded that France close down its oldest nuclear plant, Fessenheim, located near the German and Swiss borders, over safety concerns.


Explore further

German states file challenge against Belgian nuclear plants

© 2016 AFP

Citation: Germany asks Belgium to shut two old nuclear plants (2016, April 20) retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-04-germany-belgium-nuclear.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
9 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 20, 2016
It would seem that nuclear is an important technology, and that it should be very feasible to do it safely (the economics are a different matter)

Well...here's the crux of the matter: The ability to do something safely and doing something safely are two different things.

The two come in conflict as soon as money is an object (and where isn't it?)

For example they are currently checking whether all the safety inspections in german nuclear reactors have been carried out. Turns out that the very first places they looked they haven't. They've just been signed (in some cases backdated).
http://www.theloc...r-plants

Now, I posit that german regulations and control mechanisms are pretty well developed. If we can't ensure proper operations then I'm not at all confident that other countries can.

Apr 21, 2016
Further proof "nuclear is safe" shouldn't be taken seriously; the restart & extension of Doel & Tihange reactor with "saving money" as an excuse. Failed to prove safety has a priority over money.

Apr 21, 2016
Germany has a lot of unmitigated gall to ask Belgium to shut their nuclear reactors. Germany shot itself in the foot shutting theirs, guaranteeing dependency on the Arabs and on Russia forever. Now having been the ultimate fool, it wants to pressure smaller neighboring states to join in their imminent permanent economic depression and dependency.

You know Germany is dependent on the middle east. That is why they are so eager to debase their population and take in millions of middle eastern poor who are pure poison to their society in that they bring an alien religion that will transform them into a third world nation of idiots, right in the heart of Europe.

Apr 21, 2016
You know Germany is dependent on the middle east. That is why they are so eager to debase their population and take in millions of middle eastern poor

These are people fleeing war from Syria or Afghanistan (you know: they people fleeing the radicals the US created? Thankyouverymuch). These are not 'middle eastern poor'. People who flee merely for economic reasons are sent back.

And no: These people aren't "poison" (hyperbole, much?). If you think a million people will change the nature of a country made up of 80 million, substantially you're just kidding yourself.

Apr 23, 2016
These are finally being recognized as future disasters. It was a terrible mistake to think we could outsmart Nature.

We are not the sorcerers we thought we were, . . we are not even qualified to be their apprentices.

Apr 23, 2016
(you know: they people fleeing the radicals the US created? Thankyouverymuch)
@AA_P
Aww... c'mon now anti!
that isn't really fair, considering
LOL

https://en.wikipe...hanistan

https://www.yahoo...l?ref=gs

yall have also been involved a mite with NATO, so don't put the blame squarely on us just because we have idiots like the couyon-kam floating around

LMFAO

Apr 23, 2016
" just because we have idiots like the couyon-kam floating around"
---------------------------------

Your own inability to deal with your emotions is obvious by your adolescent need to disparage those who are your betters.

LMFAOPDQ

XBRTYSOL

Boy, I sure told off those kids, didn't I?

Apr 23, 2016
Boy, I sure told off those kids, didn't I?
@couyon-liar-kam
not really

is that because of your inability to comprehend how to utilise the research ability of the internet or is it because you feel that outside means of gathering knowledge (like the internet) is somehow wrong?

more to the point:
random text isn't meaningful for communication, whereas acronyms or abbreviations of known common use that are functional in a limited text environment is useful, especially where said limitations are common and strictly enforced

this means, by definition, that your outburst is infantile as well as an epic failure of basic research or communication

Your own inability to deal with your emotions is obvious by your adolescent need to disparage those who are your betters


Apr 23, 2016
"@couyon-liar-kam"??

Let's stop the silly name-calling, shall we? Let's discuss the nasty liabilities of nuclear power.

Notice the news from Hanford, where we "store" nuclear waste from weapons manufacture? The stuff leaking into the ground is too radioactive to deal with.

What do you propose we do to ensure the waste from powerplants, which differs somewhat, is going to be "safe" for the quarter-million years? Please, no nuke industry boilerplate.

Apr 23, 2016
The only way to "win" an argument with Captain Stumpy is to present him with a problem?

Sure beats the arduous task of looking up LOL on the internet.

Where do you find hats to fit that enormous head of yours?

Apr 23, 2016
You confuse/conflate experience with ego and bluster. I brought up those experiences because they were real and pertinent to the issue, and I expected to get genuine questions regarding specifics, but instead got screams of "LIAR!".

I need to "win" nothing from someone who is not real. Go argue with Willie. Or an anvil.

Both are futile and meaningless.

Apr 23, 2016
Where do you find hats to fit that enormous head of yours?
I found one for him, a silly looking pointy cap. He dressed him so he would be able to wear him to the consulting seminars he is so famous for the wide world over,,,,, he put stars and moons on him so he would look the part of the consulting Senior Engineer,,

http://www.kamburoff.com/

Now Estevan-Skippy, you tell me the trut,,,, would that instill the confidence in the consulting you were about to get? Looks more like somebody got a little tipsy at the Mardi Gras parade and keeps the cap for a keepsake, eh?

Willie-Skippy made that boo-boo with the vote, not me this time.

Apr 23, 2016
So sorry, gkam you are just so wrong. Your experience is no more than most people have. In fact, based on many of the posts and interactions I have seen you have here, you seem to have a real deficit in many of the sciences.
This can't be hidden by saying you worked in the field so you know better. The posters here have worked in a very wide variety of positions, and actually DON'T need your advice or opinion.

They are just smarter than you, and you have a lot of trouble with that. An example perhaps?

Look at greenonions' first post and look at yours.

How could I confuse your phrase that ends "...those who are your betters." with something not egotistical?

Why would people ask you anything? You only talk about yourself. Every day.

Apr 23, 2016
Look at greenonions' first post and look at yours.

How could I confuse your phrase that ends "...those who are your betters." with something not egotistical?


@ Estevan-Skippy. That is a good example too. He is going to say that he was pushed into being the troll he is by everybody else here being mean to him.

But on his very first day here, on the very first article he make the comment on, in the very first sentence that he ever wrote here, he started off with,,,,,,,,

I am a former Senior Engineer for PG&E
That was the first words he graced the phyorg with.

And in one day, he told everybody about the 8 or 7 kinds of engineer he was, over a hundred comments in his first three days. He did manage to get in the goobers, ignorant, and the not in the business a bunch on his first day too.

So when you say,,,,,,
You only talk about yourself. Every day.
,,,, you are saying the trut Cher.

Apr 23, 2016
Hi Ira. Yeah, the pointy cap appears to be the form-fitting kind. A person that is serious about consulting needs to have an appropriate website.

http://www.dranet...sulting/
http://www.myronz...ces.html
http://www.simplu...nsulting
For example.

The double standard old man Gracie has is just a fantastic defense mechanism. NOT.
When he thinks he has made a point it is because of his superior experience. When someone else points out his mistakes, they are "wiki-warriors", and not "real".

There is no more specious an argument than to state someone is not real.

Apr 23, 2016
P.S. for everybody. Non, I am not exaggerating. The nice peoples here on the physorg save every stupid thing everybody wrote so you can go back and see them as they unfolded.

How you think I am so sure that his very first contact with Otto-Skippy was him throwing a rock because Otto-Skippy had gall and nerve to post up some facts that was disputing his "facts he know from experience" (what everybody else calls slogans.)

On his first day here Captain-Skippy welcomed him, and made the mistake of asking him for some links to something he was talking about. He told the Captain-Skippy "I don't use links, I go by my experiences".

He must have bamboozled old new-agey hippy ladies down at the patio cafe and bar and thought it would work here, even after a dozen different peoples tell him it was a bad place for pretending to be engineers or scientists.

If you want to take a stroll down memory lane, here you go,,,,,, https://sciencex....ml?v=act

Apr 23, 2016
Actually, antialias, the fake inspections problem sounds more like a personnel problem than a money problem to me. What kind of idiot fakes examining the radiation monitors at a nuclear plant? And how does that save them money? Sounds more like simple sloth to me. Dudebro couldn't be bothered to go walk around and write down the numbers because he was too busy playing Xtank.

Apr 24, 2016
You silly folk can make all the personal attacks you want, since you are just anonymous trolls. You are not real people, ready to take responsibility for your nonsense.

You folk believe the nuke propaganda, and ignore Chernobyl and Fukushima, two rather obvious instances of nuclear "safety". But you parrot the numbers from the IAEA and the NRC, and those in the Nuke Business, whose life work depends on still fooling us.

And, of course, we should go back and see exactly what made Grumpy and Ira and otto so angry.

But this is a science site, not the personal billboard for these several nasty trolls. Where are our moderators?

Apr 24, 2016
And, of course, we should go back and see exactly what made Grumpy and Ira and otto so angry
that one is easy:
you lied about THz, but when presented with facts, you attacked me
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

you spread fear, misinformation and opinion as fact
http://phys.org/n...ine.html

your ideology is so strong, it blinded you (See MR166 comment)
http://phys.org/n...rse.html

you can't talk engineering with an engineer in your proposed specialty
http://phys.org/n...age.html

you lie about a classified top secret sub
http://phys.org/n...ich.html

and you can't read & don't know nukes
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

if there were MODS, you would be perma-banned for pseudoscience and chronic lies
i hope they DO moderate the site

Apr 24, 2016
@couyon-liar-kam cont'd
and note that i am not speculating about anything... like you are. nor am i guessing or promoting opinion

I am presenting factual proven observed behaviour that you yourself have presented as representative of yourself and abilities

that is not an attack, it is a factual presentation with evidence
if you consider it an "attack" then you should consider the following: https://www.psych...ttle-ego

also note that your continued presentations of opinion and argument from authority also demonstrate that either you can't learn and need remedial training in the basics of the scientific method or that you're afflicted with APD, as noted by Otto

considering your continued ranting, i would state it is the latter that is more true, as you've never demonstrated familiarity with the former

you do more harm to science than good with your rants

Apr 24, 2016
Nope, you got angry when you found out I really had the experiences in those fields and you had none. When I proved Airman of the Month, and Igloo White, and the studies and reports for NASA, and the Power Quality work you screamed I was lying, and still do.

THAT is why you got so out-of-control, like your soulmate otto.

Now, let us look to Fukushima and Chernobyl and SL-1 and TMI II for guidance, instead of nuke propaganda, shall we?

Apr 24, 2016
How many old nuke plants are being studied right now by ISIS? That was their real target in Belgium, but they had to abort it and hit the airport. Will they succeed next time?

Why do we offer them these targets? We know now nuclear power was a terrible mistake. We have to rid ourselves of it, and find ways to protect ourselves from the consequences of our hubris.

Apr 24, 2016
Nope
@couyon-liar-kam
i don't care what you did or even think
.....only what you can prove

if you're so experienced, why did you argue against THz regardless of the evidence?

if you're so experienced, then why can't you actually talk engineering with a real engineer?
like your conversation with DaSchneib here: http://phys.org/n...age.html

so lets get real and talk about real provable stuff... like science
where is your evidence supporting your hate and rhetoric?
you have none - you've offered none
and you have no means of validating your claims other than argument from authority, which you can't prove is authoritative because you can't even talk engineering with a real engineer!

you couldn't even read the evidence left here: http://phys.org/n...ars.html

so what makes you think you can promote any science anywhere else?

so you're doing nothing but spamming and trolling STILL

Apr 24, 2016
It is over your head, Stumpikins, so you keep on repeating the error you made.

Your question "where is your evidence supporting your hate and rhetoric?" is just silly, considering the issues we are discussing, the dangers of nuclear power.

Did you hear about Chernobyl and Fukushima? NO? Well, you might want to check them out.

Do you want to see the evidence of the terrorists planning to get to the Belgian nukes? No? Why do you think they did not go for the wind turbines?

Are you aware of the reality behind the corporate nuclear propaganda?

NO?

Apr 24, 2016
Your question "where is your evidence supporting your hate and rhetoric?" is just silly
@couyon-liar-kam
so IOW, you have no evidence.. right?
then, by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't substantiate your claims - so per our agreement you are reported
considering the issues we are discussing
the issues we're discussing is Nuke safety, and i've provided evidence in a scientific study as well as links to experiments done by a PhD that you can watch for yourself

all that refutes your problems with nukes and safety
it also refutes your emotional claims and proves you are not presenting a rational argument with any evidence

so again, by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't substantiate your claims - so per our agreement you are reported

again

one last point:
links or evidence or you're a liar, and i can prove that with real evidence


Apr 24, 2016
..are being studied right now by ISIS?
Sociopaths, like gskam, love conspiracy theories.
Well, nuke plants have no highly enriched uranium (HEU). Radioactive rare-earth metals, found in wind turbines, seems to be more suitable to make dirty bombs to scare ignorant people.

Apr 24, 2016
No evidence?

SL-1

Three Mile Island II

Chernobyl

Fukushima

Do I have to go into those which almost went to meltdown, as well?

Why do you ignore the blatant evidence in reality, and accept the weasel words or outright fibs of those with axes to grind?

Have you heard of Fukushima? How many reactors melted down there? You are caught in your own little ego trap, aren't you?

Apr 24, 2016
No evidence?
@couyon-liar-kam
1- no evidence - making a claim without substantiation is no different than stating a fear-based opinion

2- i took all those into consideration and they're actually included in the overall safety statistics (which is where the overall part comes in - as in, all the statistics, you know... everything.. including the bad parts)

3- repeating a fear based emotional argument when it is unsubstantiated means you have absolutely no argument except to promote your own fears and emotions

so again, by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't substantiate your claims - so per our agreement you are reported
Do I have to go into those which almost went to meltdown, as well?
1- unsubstantiated claim has no authority
2- it is included in my stats

Why do you ignore the blatant evidence in reality, and accept the weasel words or outright fibs?

you're a liar, and i can prove it


Apr 24, 2016
@couyon-liar-kam
part two: all you're doing is repeating the above fear based emotional arguments ad nauseum

this means, by definition, that you can't substantiate your claims with evidence, otherwise you would have produced it

so again, by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't substantiate your claims - so per our agreement you are reported

so, by all means, please keep repeating the same unsubstantiated claims out of fear
i will continue to keep promoting real science

until you can produce science, perhaps you should consider seeking mental health treatment?

Apr 24, 2016
You do not have to look for ways to weasel out of your error. It is all semantic nonsense. You parrot words from nuclear apologists, and I confront you with the realities of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Once again, produce your industry numbers from "real" scientists and put it up against this:

http://firsttokno...isaster/

https://www.youtu...Z2sSZ30M

Now, tell me which ones have the truth? Can you man up and admit it now?

Apr 24, 2016
"The events of 1986 continue to affect millions of people who live in the fallout zone today and more than one million children live in areas that are still contaminated.
In Ukraine, 6,000 children are born every year with genetic heart defects.
Every year, more than 3,000 Ukrainian children die from lack of medical attention.
There has been a 200 percent increase in birth defects and a 250 percent increase in congenital birth deformities in children born in the Chernobyl fallout area since 1986.
In Belarus, 85 percent children are deemed to be Chernobyl victims (they carry genetic markers" that could affect their health at any time and can be passed on to their children).
UNICEF found increases in children's disease rates, There has been a 38 percent increase in malignant tumors, a 43 percent increase in blood circulatory illnesses and a 63 percent increase in bone, muscle and connective tissue system disorders."


Apr 24, 2016
"Fukushima and Chernobyl: Myth versus Reality"
https://www.youtu...m8KwxWNg

Apr 24, 2016
produce your industry numbers from "real" scientists and put it up against this:

http://firsttoknow.com/children-chernobyl-disaster/" title="http://http://firsttoknow.com/children-chernobyl-disaster/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://firsttokno...isaster/


@ Captain-Skippy. He got you there Cher. That is cutting edge when it comes to having all the really good scientists writing their papers.

Choot, they are known all the world over for their unbiased science studies and research.
You don't believe me?

http://firsttoknow.com/

They got a section for News (new-agey news)
And one for Entertainment.
And one for Careers and Jobs. (Not much in there about scientist or engineers though.)
And one for Beauty and Health.
And another one for Relationships.
Shopping? Yeah they got that too.
Yeah, they got the Travel section too, not much about Ukraine though.
They got a really good Car page too.
They got the Video section too.

They ran out of room so they got to mix the Science stuffs in with all the other stuffs. But your "real" scientists don't stand a chance against them.

Apr 24, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. And he still wonders why nobody takes him serious about his claims of "experience" and "education". The best proofs to back up his "facts" is his "experience" with Ecowatch, First-To-Know, Utility-Dive and my personal favorite, is the one where the Skippy in the silly looking pointy cap uses four or three interweb pages to say how wonderful he is, http://www.kamburoff.com/

For big fun watching glam-Skippy "debate" the science stuffs, watch what he says about other peoples sources, compared with the sources he uses (like this one, http://firsttoknow.com/)

Apr 24, 2016
You know, @Ira, I followed that link and I swear I lost 50 points of IQ for at least ten minutes, plus I now want to know about the ugly lives of child prodigies and why Granny thought she was gonna die when her Tesla did an emergency stop because she wasn't paying attention. Gurgle.

Apr 24, 2016
your error
Couyon-liar-kam
until you can actually demonstrate where there is any error, you are simply regurgitating the same fear based stupidity: that is why you appeal to "graphic images" instead of science

not one thing in your "links" refutes a single link of mine

you do know that "overall safety" actually includes mistakes, mishaps, accidents, falls, injuries and death, right? are you illiterate or just stupid?

repeating the same fear based delusion over and over doesn't make it more true-

so again, by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't refute my claims - so per our agreement you are reported
"The events of
and again, quoting an "article" isn't science, nor is it a study, nor does it refute a single link i posted -

so again, by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't refute my claims - so per our agreement you are reported

Apr 24, 2016
And he still wonders why nobody takes him serious about his claims of "experience" and "education"
@Ira
I know, right?

worse... either he is illiterate, doesn't understand what the scientific method is (or scientific evidence) and can't differentiate between opinion (articles and blogs) and science evidence (studies, validated studies, etc)
at least now we know why he's sucking up to O_pervert, benji, bschitt and the other lying trolls!

.

.

I followed that link and I swear I lost 50 points of IQ for at least ten minutes
@Schneib
ditto
liar-kam's problem is guilt... either that or it is one of the worse cases of D-K and APD mixed together, which isn't too far off, IMHO...
what is the MO of APD (Antisocial Personality Disorder, aka-psychopathy)? manipulation, domination and control

of course, it doesn't help that she is home in the basement all the time because no one will hire a chronic liar... what's that old adage about idle hands?
LOL

Apr 24, 2016
Couyon-liar-kam cont'd
...put it up against this:
http://firsttokno...bout-us/
from their site under "about us"
Entertainment and pop culture, careers and finance, health and beauty, relationship and sex advice for both men and women, shopping and fashion info and deals, and all the latest tips and tricks for travel buffs. We're here to entertain, educate, and make you the "First to Know" on all important, fun things
perhaps you should read up on how the scientific method works before accepting "opinion" as "validated fact"??
see also: http://www.auburn...ion.html

now read my study again and tell me... why do you think your opinion fluff piece trumps the study?
what quantified data can you provide that refutes the study?
(you've given absolutely nothing so far... just linked opinion and fear and pictures)

and you claim to be versed in a STEM field?
my granddaughter knows better than to accept fluff as evidence

Apr 24, 2016
@couyon-liar-kam cont'd
more still about your "site" link to http://firsttoknow.com
First to Know is meant to be entertaining and fun
Wow... how scientific... more from your site
THE SITE AND SERVICE ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS FOR YOUR USE FOR GENERAL INFORMATION AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND...FIRSTTOKNOW MAKES NO WARRANTY AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY CONTENT AVAILABLE THROUGH, OR THE PERFORMANCE OF, THE SITE OR THE SERVICE. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ANY INFORMATION

yeah...
so they specifically state, in all caps, that the site is for entertainment and can't be held liable for printing false or misleading information... or blatant lies either!

obviously no company would ever lie to generate money, right?
*cough* phillip-morris, oil companies, leaded gas *cough*

epic fail

so, per our agreement... you get the picture, right?


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