Belgian Government Advisory Committee Calls for Nuclear Phase Out Reversal.

[NNadir]

ENDS Europe Daily: Belgium advised to reverse nuclear phase-out 20/11/06
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Advisors to the Belgian government have recommended a reversal of the country's decision to phase out nuclear power from its national energy mix.

Maintaining a legal pledge to close Belgium's seven reactors by 2025 will be too expensive in an increasingly carbon-constrained economy, a commission set up by the government to analyse the country's energy future has concluded, according to local media. Nuclear currently produces around half the country's power.

"The application of more rigorous post-Kyoto policies in Belgium without nuclear energy would be extremely costly," the Energy 2030 commission says in an interim report presented to the government last week. " Belgium should keep the nuclear option open and reconsider closure of the plants."

Belgian parliamentarians backed the phase-out in a knife-edge four years ago. But pressure to rethink the move arose soon after and culminated in energy minister Marc Verwilghen commissioning the new report, predicting that it could reopen the nuclear debate.

http://www.foratom.org/content/view/329/341/

An account in French is available here from a Belgian Newspaper:

L'application de politiques post-Kyoto plus rigoureuses en Belgique sans l'énergie nucléaire serait extrêmement coûteuse. Aussi, la Belgique devrait-elle garder l'option nucléaire ouverte et reconsidérer la fermeture des centrales." Telle est une des conclusions (du reste peu surprenantes...) du rapport de la Commission Energie 2030 révélé par "Le Soir". Ce document, rédigé par un panel d'experts et commandé par le gouvernement, est censé identifier les besoins énergétiques de la Belgique dans les vingt prochaines années et donner les réponses adéquates...

...En termes d'énergie renouvelable, compte tenu des possibilités limitées offertes par la Belgique (pas d'hydraulique, peu d'éolien), les experts préconisent une approche plus européenne. A l'heure actuelle, les producteurs sont contraints d'acheter des certificats verts lorsque le seuil de production verte n'est pas atteint. Les experts préfèrent un système de quotas en fourniture d'énergie renouvelable aux consommateurs avec, en parallèle, un système de certificats verts échangeables au sein de l'Union européenne...

http://www.lalibre.be/article.phtml?id=3&subid=85&art_id=313406

The last paragraph, if you don't read French refers to the fact that Belgium has no hydroelectric capability and little wind. The only option available to Belgium - and it's really not available - is carbon trading.

Greenpeace says that this conversation is "disconnected with reality." Huh? Greenpeace, with their very, very, very, very, very curious definition of "reality," I guess, is demanding that Belgium make itself mountainous and windy.

[phantom power]

1. It's interesting that they're framing the decision in terms of...

Kyoto, the costs of carbon trading, etc. For one thing, Kyoto isn't really in effect, and may never be, and certainly not as long as ChimpCo remains in the white house. For another, it's a rather oblique way of addressing the core issue, which is the imminent threat of climate change.

Not that I'm complaining.

[NNadir]

2. Almost always when nations take their Kyoto responsibilities seriously

they go nuclear.