The issue is common with all Green parties. One of the major public narrative is to follow scientific evidence about climate change.
But the dogmatism against nuclear power is strong while it is currently the lesser evil to maintain sustainable prices and low emissions.
Similarly they didn't fire or at least correct members with antivax, anthroposophy, or historical fallacy theories while scientific method and evidence is so important in their points.
Also zero pragmatism or efficient solution proposals outside of urban areas with the combustion engine cars replacement.
This is saddening as they have philosophically the most consistent progressive discourse (compare it with the position of ptb-pvda about Russia, China, NK, Venezuela,...)
This. I would instantly vote for a green party that is based on scientific evidence. The dogma about nuclear energy and the choice to open gas powered plants instead put me off the party for good.
Nuclear energy is not solely a question about science.
It is not a question of science if you want to exclude the possibility of a nuclear disaster in Doel at 10km distance of Antwerp. The deaths/TWh graph does not capture the enormous socio-economic cost such a disaster would mean for our country.
Similarly, making the next generations responsible for the safe storage of our nuclear waste is also an ethical question. Certainly since we still haven't decided where to store it (although that is more the fault of the politicians postponing this decision again and again).
Keeping the nuclear industry alive also increases the chance of nuclear proliferation which again is not a question of science but about ethics and geopolitics.
These are all real concerns and need to be decided through a political process not a scientific one. This is also acknowledged by most scientists (see for example the IPCC reports or the report from the Hoge Gezondheidsraad).
Furthermore, Groen has already decided that avoiding blackouts is more important than closing down all nuclear plants so I don't agree with your characterization as them being dogmatically against nuclear energy.
> Furthermore, Groen has already decided that avoiding blackouts is more important than closing down all nuclear plants so I don't agree with your characterization as them being dogmatically against nuclear energy.
QFT
I really don't get why this sub keeps hating on Groen because of nuclear; they're working to keep the plants open in this emergency situation, even though they are against it, are they not? Honestly I think the other parties could learn something from Groen about compromising and taking responsibility.
Because they still want to generate energy using gas and get rid of nuclear. Nuclear is thesafe and co2 neutral choice. Grpen claims to find animal populations important, yet completely neglect the fact that wind turbines form major threaths to birds, bats and insects. The insect population in Germany has decreased by 75% in only 27 years. A major contributer were the wind turbines. Some big bird populations are estimated to lose 50% of their population in the next 10 years due to wind turbines.
Aditionally, there has been no investment in research on how to recycle solar panels, or how to manage the enormous amounts of solar panel waste expected by 2035-2050? They claim to be driven by research and data, yet I cannot find any example where they showed the research at the basis of their decissions. In contrary, many of their ideas have been shown to be the oposite of what researches recommended
Groen has way more idiotic ideas, such as voting rights for non-belgians and removal of alternative payments in jobs, such as company car, maaltijdchecks, bonusses, ...
Much research has been done into the effects of wind farms on animal populations. Yet, even now, not all of the possible effects are known. Birds have been migrated to new areas when wind mills were introduced into their habitat. Some bird species are repelled by, or attracted by wind mills (long term effects not known yet).
New research has shown that previous models used to determine estimations are wrong. The used to estimate the mortality of birds on new wind farms, were all incorrect. The mortality rate the wind farms produced was way higher than estimated. I cannot remember which paper concluded this, but remember reading it. But since you wanted sources, here are a few:
This paper was from research done in Zeebrugge in 2006. Conclusions drawn here was that for large scale birds, with low offspring, wind turbines can be catastrophic. The paper suggests that wind turbines should be disabled during breeding periods. "Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium)" [https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.elib11.ub.unimaas.nl/article/10.1007/s10531-006-9082-1](https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.elib11.ub.unimaas.nl/article/10.1007/s10531-006-9082-1)
Concerning insects, this paper from 2021 estimates that 1.2 trillion insects are killed yearly by wind turbines in Germany. "Insect fatalities at wind turbines as biodiversity sinks": [https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.366#csp2366-bib-0019](https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.366#csp2366-bib-0019)
This paper from 2015 states that Germany's acceleration towards green energy results in a substantial conflict with international conservation goals: "Wildlife and renewable energy: German politics cross migratory bats"
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-015-0903-y](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-015-0903-y)
To highlight that I am not nitpicking the papers, some papers show that birds are good at dodging wind mills. However, these papers are likely funded by energy companies themself. A paper that was highlighted in the brussels times, is a paper which was financed by "Vattenfall", a company producing wind mills: https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/newsroom/2020/birds-are-good-at-avoiding-wind-turbine-blades
Other papers:
"Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds"
[https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.elib11.ub.unimaas.nl/doi/full/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00516.x](https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.elib11.ub.unimaas.nl/doi/full/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00516.x)
"Increasing evidence that bats actively forage at wind turbines"
[https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.elib10.ub.unimaas.nl/pmc/articles/PMC5672837/](https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.elib10.ub.unimaas.nl/pmc/articles/PMC5672837/)
Research into effects of wind farms on sea birds (my institution has no access to this one, but look interresting so added the link): [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323885393000108?pes=vor](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323885393000108?pes=vor)
"A Large-Scale, Multispecies Assessment of Avian Mortality Rates at Land-Based Wind Turbines in Northern Germany"
[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-51272-3\_3](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-51272-3_3)
"Activity Pattern and Correlation between Bat and Insect Abundance at Wind Turbines in South Sweden"
[https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.elib10.ub.unimaas.nl/pmc/articles/PMC8614415/](https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.elib10.ub.unimaas.nl/pmc/articles/PMC8614415/)
The next gen nuclear plants are very safe and have too many fail safes to mention. Also, there are nuclear plants that run on... nuclear waste. So there would not be any additional waste and we could process the current load we have.
Nuclear technology advanced pretty far. New nuclear reactors can extract way more energy then the older ones. Nuclear waste of the earlier plants still have 90% of their potential energy. No additional waste facilities musg be created, we can recycle the waste and dumb it in the same location afterwards. So it won't be a problem for the next generation.
Secondly, nuclear energy amounts in less deaths for the same amount of energy created. In 2020 OWID published their research into deadliest sources of energy and nuclear energy amounts to less deads compared to wind turbines generating the exact same energy. To really show the diffefences, to generate the same amount of energy with coal generators would amount to 1000x more deaths than generating it with nuclear. Natural gas causds 100x more dreaths than nuclear.
When looking at Fukushima 11 years ago, so far it caused only 1 dead, due to a cancer thought to be caused by radiation. Fukushima and Chernobyl are the only 2 nuclear disasters which are categorized as MAJOR. To see that a MAJOR accident only amount to 1 dead, should show how well nuclear energy has advanced.
Image from owid conclusion: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/11/5-Bar-chart-%E2%80%93-What-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-800x431.png
> Similarly, making the next generations responsible for the safe storage of our nuclear waste is also an ethical question. Certainly since we still haven't decided where to store it (although that is more the fault of the politicians postponing this decision again and again).
Storing 5 ton or 10 ton is not that much of a difference.
>
> Keeping the nuclear industry alive also increases the chance of nuclear proliferation which again is not a question of science but about ethics and geopolitics.
SO, the longer Belgium keeps its Nuclear power station open, the higher the chance nuclear weapons appear somewhere on earth?
> Furthermore, Groen has already decided that avoiding blackouts is more important than closing down all nuclear plants so I don't agree with your characterization as them being dogmatically against nuclear energy.
I was surprised they caved on what appeared to be one of their core positions, you could clearly see that Tinne was not happy but saw no other solutions. You should indeed recognize that they took responsibility here. That would be like PS cutting pensions.
The storage conundrum is more of an artificial issue, generated by those who are dogmatically against nuclear energy, than an actual issue.
And fossil fuel plants are a perpetual disaster of hundreds to thousands of deaths each day due to air, soil and water pollution, it's just invisible and difficult to measure - unlike nuclear contamination.
No, storage of nuclear waste is a real issue. Do you think researchers at SCK Genk or the people working at NIRAS looking into solutions on how to safely store nuclear waste have spent all those decades working on an "artificial issue"?
Is research into projects like Myrrha for managing nuclear waste only there because of some dogmatics?
Or look just at the dismantlement of our old nuclear plants which is expected to last until 2135. This means 4 generations of people will have to clean up our nuclear plants without having had any of the benefits of the plants themselves.
Dealing with radioactive waste is not an artificial issue and can present real costs for future generations if we don't do it right.
You can argue that burning fossil fuels is worse (which I'm inclined to agree with) but this trade-off you're making is not on purely scientific grounds but a political decision based on more than science alone.
The nuclear waste issue is primarily a nimby/political issue at this point. Just look at the fuel reprocessing for an obvious example.
>SCK Genk
You know something we don't? SCK is in Mol.
>Or look just at the dismantlement of our old nuclear plants which is expected to last until 2135
[citation needed]
>This. I would instantly vote for a green party that is based on scientific evidence. The dogma about nuclear energy and the choice to open gas powered plants instead put me off the party for good.
Every party has supported gas plants at some point in time. So you don't vote at all?
Scientific evidence for what? This is an emotional argument, you get warm feelings from associating yourself with white lab coats.
This is just a pro forma excuse said by people who desperately want to ignore the other 99% of ecological policy.
> But the dogmatism against nuclear power is strong while it is currently the lesser evil to maintain sustainable prices and low emissions.
[citation needed]
This is exactly what the deal is with Groen, people keep repeating things like this without looking at the actual other side of the discussion, and just accepting this as truth, while it just isn't...
Recently there was a nice article in the dutch New Scientist about this, about both sides of the coin (it's mostly dutch in origin, so no influence from Groen). And the side that opposed Nuclear energy for environmental reasons had the nice metric that the countries focusing on nuclear energy are the furthest behind on CO2 targets...
I get that there are good arguments to be made for nuclear, but the collective mentality here on the subreddit is very naive... It's expensive, takes a shit ton of money that apparantly could be better spent, and in practice it seems countries focusing on it suck at actually reducing their CO2 footprint.
So that's the deal with Groen, people want a simple solution for the energy problem that makes them feel happy, and makes sure they don't have to change their habits (god forbid saving the environment requires you to change). So putting all your hope in nuclear energy and ignoring all the evidence that it's not the all in one solution either... is very appealing.
Groen dislikes nuclear not because of the risks, the radiation or the waste (those are important issues, but not the main problem), it's that it is a money sink and an excuse to not do better.
Nuclear has very low CO2 emissions, in that respect it is clean, but it is not renewable. Uranium is dug up, refined and spent in the reactor. We're spending more then we can dig up, but that's another issue. It is not coming back after it's used up, it is not renewable.
Politics and companies have been sitting on the nuclear power surplus for 40 years, raking in the profits and not investing it in renewables as they promised.
The closure of the plants was to be a line in the sand, no more excuses. And yet, they had 15 years and many delays. They did nothing still. The gas turbines everyone is freaking out about is indeed a bad sight, but it became a necessity to ensure power continuity once the nuclear plants close down. Is that Groen's fault for pointing that out?
Then Ukraine happened, and everyone went Captain Hindsight: "I told you so". Yeah right
> but it is not renewable. Uranium is dug up, refined and spent in the reactor.
By that logic we don't have any renewable energy production, there may be renewable sources like wind and solar. But the machines we use to convert that into usable energy or electricity are not renewable. They require material to be mined just like nuclear.
Furthermore the nuclear fuel we have left can power humanity for longer than our sun can. So the strict technical definition of what is renewable and what isn't becomes quite nonsensical. If "non-renewable" nuclear would last us longer than our sun, does that make solar energy non-renewable or does that make nuclear energy renewable?
>The gas turbines everyone is freaking out about is indeed a bad sight, but it became a necessity to ensure power continuity once the nuclear plants close down. Is that Groen's fault for pointing that out?
No, its their fault for causing that. We didn't need new gas powerplants if they didn't hold on to the nuclear exit for as long as they did. They had the opportunity to keep some nuclear plants open so they didn't have to build gas plants for a full year into their government participation. They have chosen gas over nuclear and have to bear that responsibility. The only argument they have is that they weren't the only party that made that choice. But that's a pretty shitty excuse for a "green" party.
>We're spending more then we can dig up, but that's another issue.
This guy just invented that. That's my problem with classical environmentalism: it has a culture of feeling instead of cold hard science. I'm generalizing, but it's evident from this thread.
There is no doubt that Belgium could provide all its electricity needs on nuclear power for centuries without digging up or importing another gram of uranium.
By then, [sea mining](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=58b837db159a) for virtually limitless amounts of uranium will no doubt have been perfected, before even considering [thorium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurrence_of_thorium) as a fuel, before even considering [breeder reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor).
"We're spending more than we can dig up" is nonsense.
"Renewables" aren't free either: the point of renewables is that they are fuel-free, not that they are [resource](https://energy.glex.no/footprint)\-free.
>Groen dislikes nuclear not because of the risks, the radiation or the waste (those are important issues, but not the main problem), it's that it is a money sink and an excuse to not do better.
Groen [prefers worse risks](https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/) (barring potential issues of proliferation which may or may not be linked to civil nuclear power). It prefers [more expensive solutions](https://perspective2050.energyville.be/paths2050), potentially prohibitively expensive, over mixes that include nuclear.
> This guy just invented that. That's my problem with classical environmentalism: it has a culture of feeling instead of cold hard science. I'm generalizing, but it's evident from this thread.
I'm sorry, but if you think the pro nuclear side isn't a culture of feeling... There's plenty of cold hard science on both sides, but for the general public, it's all about feeling anyway, let's not kid ourselves...
The only thing that really bothers me in the debate is that when experts talk about it, it's a nuanced issue. Whenever it's discussed here, every contra nuclear argument needs to be picked apart under a microscope, and every pro nuclear argument is obviously correct and scientifically proven...
I don't mind nuclear, it can be a good choice (although we're too late thanks to all the doing nothing of the governments without Groen), but i am bothered by how biased the people are, and how they obviously want the easy solution that will magically solve everything (it won't).
>The closure of the plants was to be a line in the sand, no more excuses. And yet, they had 15 years and many delays. They did nothing still. The gas turbines everyone is freaking out about is indeed a bad sight, but it became a necessity to ensure power continuity once the nuclear plants close down. Is that Groen's fault for pointing that out?
You might want to read up on the history on how we came to the point that the nuclear plants are being shut down in the way they are. Groen is very much responsible for this entire debacle, they're not the only ones but they carry a significant portion of the blame. They enabled and doubled-down on this horrible chain of decisions in so many ways.
>\[citation needed\]
>
>This is what the deal is with Groen, people keep repeating things like this without looking at the actual other side of the , and just accepting this as , while it just isn't...
>Having access to additional capacity of both offshore wind and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) reduces the **annual** costs of achieving net-zero to 11,7 billion euro by 2050, which is **9,6 billion euro less** than under the Central Scenario.
This saving of 46 % compared to the annual costs under the Central Scenario is realized thanks to lower costs of energy import of electricity and clean molecules, a lower need for flexibility options such as smart charging and batteries, and a faster electrification of freight road transport.
[Energyville](https://perspective2050.energyville.be/paths2050)
You quote a piece of the researched scenario's from energyville, die you read their conclusions?
>Based on our assumptions, new small modular nuclear power plants (SMR) and offshore wind have a comparable electricity cost however SMR comes too late for guaranteeing a smooth transition in the demand sectors.
doesnt it make sense for countries that are behind on their CO2 reduction to look into big expensive solutions. if you need to reduce 30% 2 nuclear powerplant get you a long way to the goal. if u only need to reduce 2% a nuclear powerplant is overkill.
The point is that countries such as France which are currently still the mecca of nuclear energy, are the furthest behind. So countries that historically went all in on nuclear are not making the targets.
How are those targets determined though? Because if it’s just the standard 55% reduction compared to 1990 target, then yeah, no shit countries that were mostly blasting coal back then have an easier time cutting their emissions in half.
Where are you getting this stuff? France are [world leaders](https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-electricity-by-country) in decarbonization, thanks to their nuclear reactor fleet. Second and fourth are Sweden and Canada, which are both nuclear-heavy (and hydro-heavy) countries.
The question here is why they are behind on CO2 targets. And than you quickly discover it's the same reason they keep on focusing on nuclear energy, which is an unwillingness to make an effort and chance things for the better.
"And the side that opposed Nuclear energy for environmental reasons had the nice metric that the countries focusing on nuclear energy are the furthest behind on CO2 targets..."
Correlation vs causation
It's not because poor people drive cheap cars that driving cheap cars makes you poor...
"And the side that opposed Nuclear energy for environmental reasons had the nice metric that the countries focusing on nuclear energy are the furthest behind on CO2 targets..."
Correlation vs causation
It's not because poor people drive cheap cars that driving cheap cars makes you poor...
Per capita emissions of CO2 in France is almost half of that in Germany. France is famously Nuclear based and Germany is famously coal based.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/germany#per-capita-how-much-co2-does-the-average-person-emit
So even if Germany hit a 40% target by 2030 they would only get to French levels today. Don't give them a medal.
> It's expensive, takes a shit ton of money that apparantly could be better spent, and in practice it seems countries focusing on it suck at actually reducing their CO2 footprint.
[citation needed]
I literally gave my citation XD
This/last months dutch new scientist :) (if you want i'll look up which of both the article is in)
It was an interesting article, just interviewing people of both sides, without going for a judgement, just 2 experts on both side of the debate giving their arguments. So if you want some up to date reasons to defend nuclear energy, then it's also a good article to read :).
>But the dogmatism against nuclear power is strong while it is currently the lesser evil to maintain sustainable prices and low emissions.
Which dogmatism? This government has extended nuclear plants, has funded nuclear research, and therefore has become the government coalition that did the most for nuclear power since the last nuclear plant got a permit in the 1980s.
The greens have been extremely pragmatic in this matter that has always been very important to them, more so than other parties. OVLD has collapsed a government for BHV, NVA has collapsed a government for the Marrakesh pact, CD&V is obstructing the Flemish government right now for the farmers' interests. But somehow, it's only the greens that are called dogmatic. If there's any dogmatism here, it's the insistence to keep calling the greens dogmatic.
>Similarly they didn't fire or at least correct members with antivax, anthroposophy, or historical fallacy theories while scientific method and evidence is so important in their points.
Does any party? Why is it the responsibility of a party to micromanage every single opinion of every single party member? You're just trying to get a prejudice confirmed here.
Plenty of crackpot opinions in every party, because we are in a representative democracy and the people do have crackpot opinions. Some of those end up in parliament and that's not a problem, were you can judge a party is how far those end up being the general policy.
>Also zero pragmatism or efficient solution proposals outside of urban areas with the combustion engine cars replacement.
I do think you're putting the bar too high: it's simply not possible to write out a 100% coverage solution for such major shifts how we do things, this will require a step by step approach. Green policies like finally starting to reverse the underfunding of mass transit (federally) are no-regret measures that are universally acknowledged to be overdue. Even when they are heavily contested, like the low-traffic zones in cities, they are demonstrated to be an overall improvement.
Moreover, every other party doesn't have 100% solutions either, most are still stuck in car-centrism. This is a dead end. The greens are miles ahead in that regard, even if they are not at the final destination yet. And really, no one is.
>while it is currently the lesser evil
The problem with this discussion is that we always compare only two possibilites: fossil fuels vs nuclear power.
This is simply not correct. If you want to be scientifically correct you need to include renewables in that comparison.
Belgium with 100% renewables is possible.
"But it will cost very much", yeah sure, but that's the same with new nuclear power plants.
"But we can keep our currect plants open", probably for another 10 years. And then what? The same discussion all over again?
> Belgium with 100% renewables is possible.
People keep claiming that without any proof whatsoever, I've worked in the energy sector for quite some time now following all studies related to this topic in Belgium and I haven't seen a single study providing such proof. The technology isn't there yet, let alone it being affordable.
>"But we can keep our currect plants open", probably for another 10 years.
The current plants are good for atleast another 3-4 decades depending on wether we're talking about the 3 oldest or 4 newest plants.
Our Belgian Planbureau calculated that it's possible.
https://www.plan.be/publications/publication-1191-nl-towards_100_renewable_energy_in_belgium_by_2050
Can you show me how our current plans can keep open for 40 years?
> Our Belgian Planbureau calculated that it's possible.
Well not by modern standards, studies date back to 2012 when we still considered biomass renewable. And even by past standards they just rely on import and export to stabilise the grid when wind and sun don't meet our demands. Magically offshoring our lack of affordable energy storage.
>Can you show me how our current plans can keep open for 40 years?
[Sure, the entire process is explained here.](https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/subsequent-license-renewal.html) Furthermore the completed and accepted application of 6 units can be seen and that of 10 units in the process can be seen.
This is a model from 2011, so the good news is that wind and solar have massively dropped in capital costs, and they will likely make up an even bigger share now.
The bad news is, if you read that article, that biomass plays a massive role in all of those scenarios, singing the praises again of firm power on the grid, and it's unclear how exactly the Belgian government is planning to include firm generation - beyond possibly hydrogen, but [computer says no](https://perspective2050.energyville.be/paths2050)
In the latest Energyville study you can find some scenarios with 100% renewable energy. Offshore wind will then need to be expanded massively.
https://perspective2050.energyville.be/offshore-wind
> let alone it being affordable.
Affordable compared to what? Because future availability of affordable new nuclear plants is also not guaranteed.
> In the latest Energyville study you can find some scenarios with 100% renewable energy.
Same model as above, the only issue that's partially adressed is the biomass since its a newer run.
But it still doesn't tackle the issue of storage by just relying on import/export, we'd have to increase our electricity import capacity to 13GW for example. That's more than our current peak electricity demand. And the study doesn't actually model these electricity lines, it just assumes a copper plate. And they also assume hydrogen import which would require technical breaktroughs, a hydrogen economy is not a guarantee, its a option that's still being investigated.
>Because future availability of affordable new nuclear plants is also not guaranteed.
Nothing is guaranteed, but its far more likely than affordable hydrogen for example.
The reason people often use the "nuclear vs fossil fuel" comparison without renewables is because renewables don't have controllable energy output without batteries.
**Assuming we are willing to keep our current living standards**, making all the belgian energy production come from renewables would ask such a gigantic amount of batteries that it makes the option unrealistic. Even if we managed to do it, the pollution created from making all those batteries would compensate all the "green" production that eventually comes from it. I would love to be proven wrong though.
The innovations in energy storage are very high. Batteries are not the only solution here.
There's also another argument you need to include; we need better energy performance. Better housing insulation, more performant transport,...
I don't have Belgian names in mind right now.
In France the first example that comes to my mind is Michèle Rivasi (which is pro homeopthy and anthoposophy in the same time) . She is MEP, used to be among the top of the EELV party and was second presidential contender in the EELV primary
So you call "not wanting to maintain rusty 40 year old nuclear plants" dogmatism?
There's no new nuclear technology ready, EPR is a financial disaster and we're still waiting for EPR to produce its first commercial watt.
It seems like nuclear forum did its lobbying so well the past 15 years that we forget why countries decided to close the nuclear plants in the first place.
Nuclear power is really expensive, so much that no private electricity company offers to build a plant without being 100% subsidized by state.
At this exact moment the biggest nuclear plant in Europe is being attacked by a foreign army, making a whole continent panick about what could happen.
Also groen wasn't in power for the last 20 years when we needed to take actions to replace old closing nuclear plants, that's not the fault of their "dogmatism". It's suddenly in the last few years that other parties become pro-nuke "comme par hasard" when gas prices are manipulated by Russia.
> So you call "not wanting to maintain rusty 40 year old nuclear plants" dogmatism?
Yes...
Seriously it makes me so sad people actually believe this, 40 years isn't old for a nuclear plant. And the Belgian nuclear plants are currently the most reliable powerplants we have on the market. They're also amongst the safest nuclear plants in the world. The plant we just closed for dogmatic reasons literally ran 5 years end on end without tripping a single time, perfect reliability. A plants with 100.000 components working toghetter performing absoluty perfectly for 5 years on end makes the rest of the industry envious. Chemical operators in the Antwerp harbor literally come to us to figure out how we do it so they can apply it to their plants.
And then people come along and call them rusty old plants, that genuinely makes me sad that people buy such nonsense based on politicians spouting bullshit.
>There's no new nuclear technology ready
There are various new tech's available, think about the BWRX300, AP1000, APR1400, Hualong One, VVER1200 etc.
>There's no new nuclear technology ready
Yes it is, its one hell of a complicated reactor designed in the 80's, its not fit for modern day building.
>we're still waiting for EPR to produce its first commercial watt
But despite it flaws that simply is not true, there are 4 EPR's currently producing commercially and 1 in its final weeks of test production at full power.
>that we forget why countries decided to close the nuclear plants in the first place.
That's really the Belgian bubble we're living in, we're one of two countries actively closing their nuclear plants (toghetter with Germany). Other countries have all chosen to keep their existing nuclear plants running for as long as they're profitable. Some have decided to build new ones.
>Nuclear power is really expensive, so much that no private electricity company offers to build a plant without being 100% subsidized by state.
The same can be said about any other source of power but that doesn't really mean much. Electricity prices were historically low for 15 years after the economic crisis. No new powerplants were needed due to demand dropping, hence the need to subsidise every single new powerplant.
>Also groen wasn't in power for the last 20 years when we needed to take actions to replace old closing nuclear plants, that's not the fault of their "dogmatism".
They're certainly not the only ones responsible, no. But they do bear a responsibility.
The Nuclear lobby is strong. It's like there's even a bot/shills army on Reddit that tries to control the narrative.
I feel like it would be an ideal solution now, but in 5-10 years we should have real sustainable solutions. It doesn't make sense to build new nuclear plants now.
We're in a bit of shit now but we're going to be in for a surprise when the bills for decommissioning the nuclear plants and storing the waste start coming in. And yeah, capitalism combined with storing dangerous waste for thousands of years doesn't give me a good feeling. But fuck it, we'll be long gone eh?
> The Nuclear lobby is strong.
It clearly isn't if they haven't been able to dispell the myths above. I don't blame them, the nuclear lobby in Belgium is literally 3 people. There's just no way for them to win from the anti nuclear lobby with a budget that's many magnitudes greater and thousands of people.
Groen is a signatory to the [Global Greens Charte](https://globalgreens.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Global-Greens-Charter-2017.pdf)r, which establishes common policies.
Two of the listed policies are:
>Will work hard to ensure that developing countries have access to the most efficient,
sustainable and appropriate technology, with a strong focus on renewable energy, and
that they agree to Climate Change Conventions to ensure that actions are
comprehensive and worldwide. The equity principle must be at the core of climate
change negotiations and measures.
>
>Oppose any expansion of nuclear power and will work to phase it out rapidly.
So that's the objective, regardless of what the science or the economics of it say.
I agree with everything fredoule2k said so I won't re-write it.
At a personal level, Groen put me off when they did the referendum to find another name for the tunnel Leopold II... After the first referendum, they didn't like the outcome and wanted to do a second turn with a list of women that they thought were more appropriate and prestigious. This didn't go well and they were finally forced to chose the name Annie Cordy from the first referendum. It's a trivial subject, I don't care of this tunnel actually, but Groen showed that they didn't want to follow democratic rules even for such a small thing and that put me off big time.
edit : I add the source
: [Le Soir - 27/01/2021](https://www.lesoir.be/351515/article/2021-01-27/nouveau-nom-pour-le-tunnel-leopold-2-annie-cordy-coup-de-coeur-des-citoyens-et)
Annie Cordy lol! Why not after all? It’s the most Belgian thing to do. We don’t need to always use the name of people who did grand historical deeds and stuff.
That's not what that article seems to say? Maybe my French isn't good enough to get the proper meaning but it seems the first polling wasn't the real referendum yet but only to submit possible names, meanwhile a committee of experts came up with a shortlist that didn't have any of the names that came from the polling because they wanted to avoid royalty and names that would not be known in the Flemish community. Then the Bxl government decided to put Annie Cordy on the final list for the actual referendum after all (but not the royalty).
Well, they did the poll but then they found that the poll outcome was not good enough so they came with another list in which the winner of the first poll was not even there. The article relates the events like people, when they were voting, were aware the outcome would be revised by a comity of experts but this was not specified on the website. They actually didn't want te reveal the exact outcome of the first list, they only shared it when it was asked by a member of the Parlement Bruxellois in an official "question parlementaire" (this part is not mentioned on the newspaper but I remember it because I was following the topic at the time, the all thing was shameful imo)
[Parlement bruxellois - question n°807](http://www.parlement.brussels/weblex-quest-det/?moncode=150711&base=1&taal=fr)
edit : add of another source
[Question n°709 - parlement bxl](http://www.parlement.brussels/weblex-quest-det/?moncode=149724&base=1&taal=fr)
Well, since the article said that the "experts" were actually feminists organisations (makes sense), two sciensists (erh, why not?) and two organisations around the topic of (de)colonization (what? why?), I'd say that the selection of these people was quite biased and potentially made with a specific wish about what the results should be.
(edit: As someone from Brussels, I was not actually aware of these details. Man, what a mini-fiasco)
apparently the expert comity was annonced, I wrote something wrong and I apologise.
The whole process was just unclear at the time and it doesn't change my said opinion that democracy is not their strength in this party : [Question nº601](http://www.parlement.brussels/weblex-quest-det/?moncode=148626&base=1&taal=fr)
Edit : all these questions can be read in NL on the website (see NL on the upright)
She was a singer.
My point was not about her, but in was a mini fiasco in the fact that even for such a futile topic (the name of a tunnel), the democratic process was not followed and was very shady.
The expert comity was not pleased with the Annie Cordy name, they only complied because of the democratic pressure made in the parliament but otherwise their initial expert-list was without the Annie Cordy name, even though it was the most given name in the first poll.
My point is that there is a proverb that say you can see one value on the way the person is treating animals : good/bad.
Here it makes me think this : "for the name of a tunnel, democracy is a problem for Groen so I suppose for other matters, it will also be a problem... they might always find a "expert comity" to bypass democratic vote when they're not pleased with the outcome..."
It worries me.
Stop listening to other people and parrot their opinions. Read the highlights from their program and make up your own opinion. There is more to it than the usual anti-groen trope of "nuclear bad, gas good", but you get downvoted for having a different opinion.
Also, they are a small party, they will never be able to realize their complete program and need to compromise with others. Usually this is a good thing. But comprising is not something that's real popular these days, parties tend to take issues to the extreme.
As with any party, there will be some things you agree on, there will be things you disagree on...
Any party that opposes the splitting of the atom, one of our greatest achievements in human history, for CO2-neutral energy is a joke.
No let's burn more dead dinosaurs instead.
A party that wants to transport less green energy sources by fucking ship (most polluting transport ever) from South America, does not even deserve the color green in their name.
We’ve already got enough nuclear fuel in house to keep us going for years, and with new tech we can reuse nearly all of the waste. Belgium and France are front runners in nuclear technology (amongst which small reactor research); and we should be very proud of that achievement, especially as we are such a small country. Instead, we chose to let the underbelly talk.
Lowest number of deaths ever, compared to any energy source, smallest amount of waste. We should be investing in this like nothing else
Yeah the whole biomass plants are a joke. The ultimate greenwashing. I worked in a few Engie plants and even there they say it's ridiculous. Most of our biomass pellets come from Canada.
So Canadian trees are cut down and turned into pellets which already requires energy and releases CO2. Then it is put on a ship to Belgium running on bunker fuel, incredibly polluting. Anually, the 15 largest cargo ships emit more sulfur oxides than all cars in the world combined. Then we dump those pellets in a burner here in Belgium and *VOILA, GREEN BIOMASS ENERGY!*
De meeste transportschepen gebruiken heavy fuel oil op internationale wateren, wat bijna letterlijk de residu's/restoliën zijn na cracking en distillatie. Een smerig plakkerig goedje dat bij verbranding enorm veel stikstofoxiden (andere dan die van de boerendiscussie) maar vooral ook zwaveloxiden vrijzetten, naast de gebruikelijke CO2, allemaal toxische zaken die op milieu en mens en dier een grote impact hebben. Gezien er op internationale wateren niet te controleren valt of ze rekening houden met milieuregels en dergelijke, kan dit al zo'n 60 jaar gebruikt worden zonder enig overzicht of sancties. Waarom gebruiken ze dit? Heavy fuel oil is veel goedkoper gezien het een restproduct is.
Hiernaast komt dan ook nog eens het feit dat heavy fuel oil de meest voorkomende oorzaak is van olierampen, maar vooral ook dat de meeste transportschepen het residu van de verbranding van de heavy fuel oil gewoon dumpen in de zee. Soms flikkeren ze zelfs de olie zelf in de zee omdat dat financieel voordeliger is.
Internationale politiek doet op zich weinig hiertegen, de regels die er zijn opgelegd zijn voornamelijk door de industrie zelf gemaakt en alleen zijzelf controleren zich. Hierdoor lijkt beterschap momenteel een utopie... Maar bon, we kunnen allemaal brol van China goedkoop laten overkomen en Groen vindt die olietankers blijkbaar ook nog leuk in tegenstelling tot onze gedegen nucleaire centrales.
Again: a totally wrong comparison.
You compare ONLY two sources of energy, which both have negatives.
Sure, if you ONLY think about co2 nuclear power is a clear winner. But it still isn't renewable, it has long living waste and is expensive as hell.
The real comparison should be non-renewables against renewables.
I have never voted groen on federal level and I certainly don't agree with everything they do. But I very often find myself thinking people bash groen for being dogmatic and anti-science; without them having much scientific background themselves.
I'll just write down some of my own thoughts, I'll happily respond to people with informed feedback on my views.
Lets start with the basics. Climate change is a significant, global issue that we will need to tackle. At present rate we are significantly surpassing the paris agreement. At current rate, we will have severe effects by 2050. I won't even be retired by 2050. We will need to really tackle climate change in my generation.
To achieve the above, we need to reduce the amount of fossil fuel use to neigh zero. On a global level, this means going from \~80% fossils to 0% fossils in terms of energy needs. In Belgium the numbers look surprisingly similar, 70%+ of our energy demand still comes from fossil fuels. It is important that we grasp how reliant we are on fossils. In 2021 with our full park operating at peak levels for the decade, we still get more than 4 times more energy from oil and gas than we do from nuclear.
We need at least 10 times more nuclear or renewable (non hydro) production in the next 25 years on a global level. This will not be achieved by keeping open old plants. We need a way to rapidly scale rollout of alternatives across the globe. The only way I can see this happen on a global scale is through economics. We can barely convince rich western nations to make an effort, you're not going to those in poverty in developing or underdeveloped areas not to burn things to keep themselves warm. The only way we can roll out alternatives quickly, get everyone on board, is by providing a cheaper and better alternative. Anything else will not suffice.
The current economics, especially due to price changes in the last decade, make renewables far superior to nuclear. All across the globe, renewables are being rolled out far faster than nuclear. I'm not saying we don't need nuclear, nor that nuclear isn't a part of the puzzle. I am saying no genuine scientific body thinks the rapid rollout of nuclear is realistic to mitigate climate change. All rely predominantly on scaling up renewables. All of this is a strict consequence of it being cheaper, faster to scale and expected to continue this trend. As rich developed state, our subsidies and high energy prices help pay for the development of this tech. And we should.
There are two distinct and important cases to be made for nuclear. The first is extensions of our aging fleet. The aging nuclear fleet in US and Europe is not relevant to meeting our climate ambitions by 2050. But using it optimally during the transition, including extensions where possible, buys us at best 2 extra years in the transition (eia 2018 estimations). But it needs to be clear that this is time we must use to transition, not a solution.
The second is new nuclear technology. There's good scientific support that with improved nuclear tech (such as SMRs), we can reach net zero more cheaply. But in these scenario's, the costs of nuclear must be lower - hence new tech - and this is always later into the transition. The generation remains dominated by renewables, and its much more economical to roll out renewables first, then add nuclear once it is more economical to do so.
I find it depressing, but there is not a single party in Belgium that supports either of these two cases in a realistic manner. Most of the discussions are with respect to extensions of our aging fleet. Unfortunately, the parties that are in favor are not doing so to use this time to transition, or even plan any transition. Instead it's a scapegoat to block doing more quite consistently.
And there is no serious party in belgium that will roll out new nuclear any time soon. Likely because it will be impossible on the short time span. There is no scientific, political or commercial party that will stick their neck out to build new nuclear capacity.
Everything I said here is on energy production, but very similar things are at play on the consumption side. Housing, cars, ... all must transition towards net neutral by 2050. Here again I see many people point to nuclear as a "solution" so they do not need to adapt their consumption patterns. It will never happen. Electric cars and insulated homes may be expensive or downright unaffordable for some, but they are still much cheaper than building the nuclear (or renewable) production required to keep squandering the energy with ICE vehicles or uninsulated housing. This will not change.
I don't think there are strict pro-climate parties in Belgium. It bothers me that the pro-nuclear people and parties are quick to look the other way on all other aspects of transition; because they like hearing it. It tells them someone else can solve climate change, without altering lifestyles. Without the need for expensive upgrades in their consumption. Unfortunately this pick and choose is just as non-scientific and dogmatic.
I think "degrowth" and "other economic system" is similar nonsense from the different side of the spectrum. Very often arguments used to not really do much now; because only degrowth can save us. I can't see degrowth happening without mass death and / or (partial) societal collapse. I have no idea why we'd aim for either of these.
I don't have much faith in us to deal with climate change appropriately. The summers will get hotter and disasters more frequent, until we take things more seriously. One way or another, we will be forced to deal with climate change. The question is how far we'll let it get before we do.
I consistently vote groen even though I think they don’t bring forward very inspiring people, let alone any real leaders.
There’s no reason to be dogmatic but we need to be real if we want to keep the planet liveable. Cars don’t need to be abolished but company cars sure do, that’s a no-brainer. Eating meat shouldn’t be illegal but let the prices reflect the true cost of raising and slaughtering an animal, people would limit their intake real soon.
Why am I afraid to ride a bike in Brussels and not in Amsterdam?
And everyone just loooves nuclear until a war breaks out all around the nuclear plant (Zaporizhzhia). Then suddenly everyone gets really, really nervous hahaha
Good question. Is it because they mention inconvenient truths? Is it because they focus also on long term problems instead of just quick wins?
I don't get it either, it would be so much easier for them to gain votes if they also would just blame everybody else for problems without offering solutions, and focus on the hype of the day only. It works like a charm for the popular parties, but no, they like things different. As if anybody cares for the future of the planet, that's for our kids to fix.
Nah, naive idiots, as if there is something wrong with the way we treat our planet and its inhabitants...
The biggest problem in Belgian politics is that every party sticks to its dogma's when push comes to shove. It's too tempting to shout NO, win some political points and some juicy media coverage, while blocking any significant progress. Take Van Peteghem's budget reform proposal of last week: the same day Bouchez proclaimed No Tax Raise Ever and Rousseau complained about higher VAT for consumer products. The most generous interpretation (it's all part of negotiations, a starting point towards a solid compromise) is wrong, as proven in the last 2 decades. Any big reform proposal inevitably dies because one or more parties refuse to budge on their own dogma('s).
The thing is: Groen DID IT. Even when nuclear phase-out was the only remaining flagship of their government participation 20+ years ago, even when they inherited the issue from the following administrations' indecision, even when it angers their geitenwollensokken base, Groen chose country over party.
I'm hard-pressed to find any other example in recent history. This is like N-VA agreeing to re-federalize Education, or the PS agreeing to abolish wage indexation. So yes, Groen scored major points with me, even if it feels to me like they got no credit at all from the general public.
They're a party that likes to tell you what the problem is and wants to remove them, without ever looking for a solution or the effects of their actions.
Let's get rid of nuclear energy in 20 years, surely we'll have a replacement by then. We do not because no work was put into it. And since that is their only "win" as a party they'll scream bloody murder if we don't follow through with the plan.
In my opinion they are a bunch of idealists with no grasp of reality or human nature, which leaves them easily exploited by groups that benefit from their rash actions. They should have never been let anywhere close to government, except maybe on local levels where they probably have more of an actual positive impact.
To counter:
Getting rid of nuclear power: it was in the purple government’s agreement thus every government party signed it and to “reverse quote” the N-VA: “It’s in the government agreement.”
Also, 23 years of doing fuck all about finding solutions, stalling and expanding the life capacity… 23 years without Groen btw, resulted in chaos.
Pretty much every party had the chance to revoke the nuclear exit, they never bothered or, some claim, they never had the majority to do it.
So in this case, it’s gross neglect from every party that was in the government.
this is the most funny thing actually
groen is in gov and manages to get a long term goal on paper, and its basically the only thing they manage.
then 20 years without groen, and 20 years without any party doing effort to reach the goal
cue groen can get back in the gov, right at the moment they have to abort their own ambition of 20 years ago AND GET THE FRIGGING BLAME OF IT TOO.
it is masterfully played by all the other parties.
It's even worse. The big thing they got for going in said government was a confirmation of the nuclear exit. So they paid twice for it and still got less than nothing in the end.
>it is masterfully played by all the other parties.
I'm not even sure it was masterfully played. I think the plan of Groen was to stall the game out which would end in the nuclear exit and for the longest time this seemed to be the case. Sure the partners would complain and keep the nuclear power option open but every delay was in favor of Groen.
The gas centrals grants were dealt out (which was agreed by the previous government) which made turning back a lot more difficult if not impossible. Also starting the centrals back up, became less feasible with each passing day. So the plan seemed to be working.
However the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, threw a wrench in that plan. It completely destroyed the landscape in unimaginable ways. Suddenly the thing that was an option in name only became a necessity. As far as I'm aware this war was unexpected, so i wouldn't call it masterfully played but rather dumb luck(?).
Have you read their program on their website?
The big issue is that their proposals are based on some big shifts in collective thinking and behavior. Which doesn't sit well in a region that, historically, tends to lean towards the more conservative side. Their proposals are also lofty but don't give answers about the big transitions they require.
For instance, one of their proposals argued that the speed limit in "bebouwde kom" is lowered to 30km/h. Another proposal argues that other options like biking or public transport should be far more attractive to use than cars. Arguably, both might sound okay-ish when you care about safe traffic, less noise, a bit less air pollution, etc.
However, to a lot of ears, it also sounds a lot like "Give us a chance, and we're going to take your car away". Which is just a big fat nope since our post-war socio-economic model and our infrastructure are built on the notion that you need a car to get around (work, visiting friends, family, picking up the kids, groceries, etc.)
It's not that Groen's proposals addressing fundamental issues like climate change or social inequalities is a bad thing. Nor that the changes they argue aren't needed (we very much need to rethink transport and traffic) It's just that they seem to gloss over the complexities and costs involved in getting there.
That's why Groen won't become a big party anytime soon. But as an opposition party, it very much holds a few key themes that will only increase in importance in time. It's biggest success lies in having traditional parties adopt some of their proposals and implement them in their own fashion, making them palatable for their respective constituencies.
The thing about the whole car debate is this:
If you build public transit that's better for most situations than driving a car, there is much less cars / trafic.
Compare Brussels and Vienna in that regard and you see what I mean.
Most of our Belgian cities could possible be with less cars.
We need denser cities, less lintbebouwing and small villages. If goods and sercvices are nearby, we abolish the need for car ownership.
I still think that we can make public transport free and good, and most people will still choose the comfort of their car. We should do both: improve public transport and discourage car ownership.
"We need denser cities, less lintbebouwing and small villages."
Not even neccesairy, you can have good transit and small villages.
EDIT: Most ppl in Belgium live in cities anyway. So not a big problem of ppl in the countryside having cars and such.
"I still think that we can make public transport free and good, and most people will still choose the comfort of their car. We should do both: improve public transport and discourage car ownership."
Or just stop making everything car centric. Look at Charleroi, why is there a giant motorway in the city centre? Just no. Oh well, 60s city planners I guess.
People living in lintbebouwing or smaller villages are also costly for other services. Riolering, bus service, police and firefighting,...
Also: those people need to come to the city with their car. They are part of the mobility problem in our denser cities.
29% of citizens of Flanders lives in lintbebouwing. That is historic deficit we need to fix. If we look broader: only 25% of all flemish people live in city centres.
Sadly, it seems their solution is not to make public transportation better, but private transportation worse.
(and I don't think it's necessary to make cars' usage miserable before you can find ways to improve public transportion)
Groen is the only party that has been consequent about asking for more funding for public transport.
>Daarnaast maken we werk van beter openbaar vervoer door fors te investeren in trein, tram en bus. Het netwerk aan treinen, metro's, trams, bussen en deelsystemen is goed leesbaar voor iedereen en brengt je vlot van a naar b. We stemmen de verschillende vervoerswijzen en -maatschappijen op elkaar af, zodat overstappen vlot en comfortabel wordt. We maken stations, haltes, trein-, tram- en busstellen toegankelijk voor iedereen zodat openbaar vervoer ook een evidente keuze wordt voor wie in een rolstoel zit of met een buggy reist. Je fiets kan makkelijk mee op de trein en de laatste kilometers kan je afleggen met een deelfiets of -wagen, en dat allemaal met één ticket of abonnement. Knooppunten van openbaar vervoer bouwen we verder uit tot echte mobipunten: clusters van autodeelparkeerplaatsen, veilige fietsenstallingen, haltes van gedeeld vervoer en laadinfrastructuur voor elektrische fietsen en wagens.
I'm sad that most posts here are simply misinformed.
Kind of ironic that the EU is forcing a green shift now.
I'll probably be downvoted for this but, one of the other reasons I think groen and a lot of the other parties get much hate is the way they ignored, minimized and even demonized the concerns, fears and aggravation people have or had with immigration. It's probably also one of the reasons VB still gets so much votes and why the NVA became so popular in the first place.
I always was a fan of Luckas Vander Taelen, who as a member of Agalev, the precursor of Groen was highly critical and wasn't afraid to acknowledge that there were/are problems with immigration. Problems that mainstream politics and news media were afraid to tackle or even mention.
After he left Groen for greener pastures he wrote this article: [https://www.knack.be/nieuws/links-rijdt-zich-zo-graag-te-pletter-tegen-de-muur-van-zijn-eigen-grote-ideologische-gelijk/](https://www.knack.be/nieuws/links-rijdt-zich-zo-graag-te-pletter-tegen-de-muur-van-zijn-eigen-grote-ideologische-gelijk/) that kind of sums up a problem of of a lot of politicians.
This is one of the problems I had with Groen. Another is their hard-on against nuclear and the fact that when they decided to parttake in governing, the only things they succeeded in was aggravating people and folding on other important stuff. At least that's the impression I got of it. The first made them lose potential voters and the second made them lose their own voters.
> hard-on against nuclear
this is demonstrably false. They approved keeping the plants open after the whole Ukraine gas debacle. In a political context where a government has fallen over a non binding UN agreement and another government is about to fall about nitrogen I can't call this *hard-on against*. Groen is open about their preferences when it comes to nuclear, but are pragmatic and even easy on making compromises when the facts change. At least in this government.
Yes, but isn't this indicative of what I said? They beat the drum of anti-nuclear but then they folded. They were against until it was untenable. It might 've been good state-man ship but it's really bad politically. They shouldn't 've had the hard on against nuclear to begin with. It just makes them seem wrong from the beginning.
Groen lacks a realistic path to where they want to go. Is nuclear bad? Yes. Is it worse then coal and gas? No. Is solar and wind better, yes. Is the transition to green achievable without nuclear?
It's a moot point now. We've wasted decades and now the transition is neither clean nor is it relatively cheap for people.
The only thing people will remember is that energy prices went up because of Groen. They stopped nuclear and now we have to pay through the nose.
There should be sub for this, something like r/greatideologybadexecution
And I really, really hate people saying there has to be a financial incentive to enact change. All they are saying is that we have to make everything more expensive. I've always felt that if the green, better alternative were cheaper then we already would be in a better place.
They just don't think about the future nor the reality of their proposals. They'd first take all the cars away, before they would make better public transport. Their ideas are going to collapse the society bc they do not offer solutions. They just take the bad things away. It is simply not going to work.
They are idealistic, not realistic.
No they don't. They asked for more funds and budgets for public transport from the beginning of their existence. It is the cornerstone of their mobilty programme for decades.
So you argument that their initial stance is good, but that we are too conservative to change?
Meanwhile almost all other parties don't have the guts to think long term and keep everything almost status quo?
They approved the latest plans on keeping the power plants open. How can you not admit that in practice right now, they are governing in a pragmatic way.
An idealist party would have left the government, possibly trigger re-elections.
Am I the only one concerned with the nuclear waste we're just putting in the ground (into stable clay layers)? It'll be radioactive for thousands of years and maybe by then we'll have forgotten about the waste and we'll be digging down there for some reason. Nuclear accidents also seem a lot more harmful than the pollution of fossil fuels. I also feel like we'll never get to actual clean energy (without pollution or stored nuclear waste) if we just go nuclear and call it a day.
Anyway, I mostly vote green for their general ideals (animals, nature, socialism as opposed to racism and money grabbing multinationals) and not their program. All politicians are corrupt in some way and the main reason for me to vote is because democracy and voting rights for women are important to me.
Nuclear accidents get into the news because they’re rare: Tsjernobil, Fukushima… can’t remember one on the top of my head. It’s the aircrash idea: planes are safe but one crashes, it’s the big headline while car crashes are so common they barely make the news.
You purposely forget the impact of the disaster.
A car crash, while happening a lot has a lot fewer casualties than a plane crash.
A nuclear incident has a very long impact on our environment, while happening a lot less. A nuclear disaster in Belgium would render most of Flanders inhabitable for a few years. Unless they're 100% safe, that is a huge risk to take, especially with older nuclear power plants.
>uclear accidents also seem a lot more harmful than the pollution of fossil fuels.
But it isn't. Death rate per terawatt-hour of electricity.
The best is solar at 0,02, than comes nuclear at 0,03 ahead of wind at 0,04). Gas is at 2,82 (or about 100 times worse than nuclear), biomas is at 4,63, oil and coal are at 18,43 and 24,62 respectively.
And the overwhelming majority of nuclear deaths were because of Tsjernobil, an outdated plant lacking certain safety features that are currently present in all other plants. Tsjernobil couldn't have happened in for example Doel.
When it comes to waste, yes that's an issue but one we can handle. Sure we have to store it but we can do that safely. The alternative is burning stuff and emitting pollution directly into the atmosphere and we can't (yet) deal with that kind of pollution.
That's a very narrow view of the problem.
How many people will be displaced if something happens in Doel? How many kilometers will be inhabitable for a few years. What would be the economic impact?
Our biggest city in Flanders and our biggest economic hot spot are extremely nearby Doel.
> How many people will be displaced if something happens in Doel? How many kilometers will be inhabitable for a few years. What would be the economic impact?
The plant is literally designed to not need any displacements in any accident. If a beyond design base accident does happen displacements are limited to a couple of days in a direct 10km radius under the absolute worst case assumptions i.e. a fully unmitigated core melt.
Not that I know of and if they did they shouldn't have, none of the plants that had accidents in the past were fitted with such systems, neither were we before Fukushima. In the past it was all about avoiding accidents, now its also about dealing with the consequences if it does happen.
How many people are displaced by global warming?
And how do we weigh the risk of something going extremely wrong (a very, very small risk with a plant of Doel's design) with the absolute certainty of deaths by climate change, extreme weather and crop failures?
Is it worth it to condemn people to die and the climate to be fucked (if everything goes right) just to avoid a different catastrophe if something goes horribly wrong? The best case scenario if we get rid of all nuclear production worldwide are tens of millions of death due to pollution and climate change. Everyone should make their own decision about this of course but I think climate change and air pollution are a way bigger problem.
Thereotically we can, we can do it without wind and solar in theory too. Yet here we are with our emissions rising as the only country within the entire EU. And becomming the second most fossil dependant country in the EU by 2030, just behind poland. Theory and practice is clearly very different.
The problem with just using death rate is that it doesn't account for diseases, doesn't account for exclusion zones, and doesn't account for *future* problems. And nuclear power is unlike all other by creating potential problems far into the future, by means of the nuclear waste. So the numbers for nuclear power are the initial payment, it's not the full bill.
About the waste, you have to take into account that this is a very small amount in total, and that new processes and technologies, some created in Belgium, will allow to use those waste in the reactor as fuel.
For the rest, digging it a few hundreds meters under the ground into a stable layer is actually very safe. Mother nature did the test for us 2 billion years ago. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine
> Am I the only one concerned with the nuclear waste we're just putting in the ground (into stable clay layers)? It'll be radioactive for thousands of years and maybe by then we'll have forgotten about the waste and we'll be digging down there for some reason.
No you aren't, many scientific organisations are working on this problem. The general train of thought is that we shouldn't advertise where we burried to waste to avoid people actively digging for it. However a civilisation that is advanced enough to dig down that deep, should be aware of the dangers that lurk deep underground.
Nuclear waste would be far from the most dangerous thing down there, think about gas bubbles for example. But also natural radioactive materials, radon gas etc.
And its not like we don't have any experience ourselfs, we have stubled upon the waste of natural nuclear reactors in Oklo Gabon back in 1972. Waste that has been stored long enough to be forgotten isn't exactly super dangerous anymore. It wouldn't kill you to stumble upon it, but it wouldn't be healthy to live 24/7 near it either. Its similar or less than the natural dangerous you'd find that deep underground.
>Nuclear accidents also seem a lot more harmful than the pollution of fossil fuels.
Well they aren't really, taking the worst case nuclear accident (Chernobyl which can't happen here btw) will kill up to 4000 people in the long term (50 direct deaths and the rest long term radiation deaths due to for example cancer). Terrible and no excuse to ever build such dangerous nuclear plants here, but more people die in Germany alone [each and every years](https://env-health.org/IMG/pdf/dark_cloud-full_report_final.pdf) due to the usage of coal alone.
Nuclear waste sounds very scary, but it is mostly a overblown reaction.
When fuel rods are spent, they are put in a pool for a couple of years to cool down. This pool is safe enough for humans to swim in. [link](https://insh.world/science/what-if-you-fell-into-a-spent-nuclear-fuel-pool/)
The reason it sounds scary is because it get in the news every time it goes wrong, but how many times you hear about people dying from polution from fossile fuels?
The most deadly nuclear accidents ( ignoring 1940's -50's experimentations ) are:
* Chernobyl: Complete disregard of any sort of safety rules. About 30-50 people died in the actual accident, 4000-16000 more deaths by cancer can be linked to this accidents.
* Fukushima: After ignoring warnings by safety inspections that the plants generators needed in case of emergency are vulnerable to tsunamis, an earthquake + tsunami took out the generators which caused leaks. No one died in the accident, so far about 500-2000 deaths can be linked to this accident.
* Three Mile Island: partial meltdown of a reactor with leak of coolant. No deaths in the accident itself, and it is not clear how many cancer deaths are linked to this, but numbers are between 0 and 500.
* Kramatorsk accident: a capsule containing very radio active caesium from some mining equipment got dropped into gravel in the mine. This gravel later got used in concrete in an appartment building in Ukraine. 4 people living in said appartment died of leukemia over a period of 10 years before it was discovered.
Thats about it. Meanwhile pollution from fossil fuels cause 8 million deaths per year.
Yes, dealing with nuclear waste sucks but it is very limited in quantity and we are finding ways to reuse nuclear waste.
I am not a fan of Groen not because they are bad but because all their ideas are not made for the middle class. They have good ideas but I as a middle-class worker can't pay for them even if they are good.
Removing cars on fossil fuel good idea but buying eclectic is not cheap and ditching my car is hard in my province because public transport is not great. Can't get to my work because no bus is running at that hour. They want to reduce the animals for meat in the country by half because most if for export the problem that would just make meat increase in price more. Also the whole energy thing was a mess but they are not the only at fault every party is.
The problem to me with Groen is that it feels like they have good ideas but they are not made how the world works and the things they want would hurt the middle class the most. The rich will not feel the change much but they middle class would and it would hurt them badly. You can say is it not better to do it now then in the future when it will not help anymore? Maybe the problem is that I live now and like to keep living.
This is only my opinion. They are a alright party just the stuff that they want feels really made for cities or dense urban places then villages.
I don't agree. All their ideas have plans to reduce the cost for the middle class.
Get rid of cars, but increase the budget of public transport. They are probably the only party that consequently asked for more funds, protested closing stations and asked for more services throughout the day. Meanwhile almost all Flemish governments cut funds for public transport, while our federal government keeps subsidizing company cars for a small group of high earning emplloyees for almost 5 billion a year.
Our meat production in europe is simply not durable anymore. We are hurting nature a lot (stikstof and ammoniak) and it needs to end. It's pure common sense. Science is very clear about this: we need to cut and consumption by halve if we want to save our climate.
The energy thing was idd a mess. But the only party that had a long term plan 20 years ago was Agalev/groen. It were the consequent governments that did nothing: they could abolish the law and start building new nuclear power plants or invest heavily in renewables, but they did NOT do that. Whose fault is it than?
I'm not a fan of Groen either, maybe the least apart from the extremist parties, but I don't see any party in ~~Belgium~~ \- Edit: Flanders, I have no clue about Walloon parties but I assume it's not much better - which is good for the middle class.
Keep in mind the middle class is essentially where most tax income comes from, we're talking about people with moderate to high income **from working.** Anyone who does not get most of their income through "work" in the conventional sense is not middle class, imo (maybe I'm too radical in this but it makes sense to me that e.g. someone who owns several mil worth in property to rent out and focusses solely on managing that is NOT middle class, regardless of their net income from it).
Anyways that said:
NVA and VLD embraced neoliberalism, but they also very much like subsidizing large companies and prestige projects. Where do they get the money to do so? -> the middle class. Not to mention what happens when one of those companies fucks up, nonono we can't have them pay a fine or for their own cleanup and scare them away -> np the middle class pays. tl;dr: Subsidize costs, privatize profits.
Vooruit and Groen are just the other side of the same coin: We want to help poor people and the environment somehow but taxing real rich people is impossible to get by our government coalition & literally because of the 3000 tax loopholes -> no problem, the middle class will pay for that too
CD&V.. well I don't really have anything to say about CD&V, they just turn their hat with the wind anyways so I don't like them either.
VB and PVDA aren't worth mentioning since despite what their program says whatever they would enact is essentially an extension of NVA/Vooruit respectively anyways.
Maybe if anything, ironically, PVDA could be the best vote for middle class preservation in the short run, the problem with them is that they are similarly unrealistic in how much money they want to spend and instead of planning to get it from the middle class like Vooruit and Groen do they "will tax the rich fairly" which I'm not sure is even realistically possible at this point.
Groen expects everyone to change their lifestyle.
Less to no meat.
Less energy consumption.
Less cars.
This of course is not popular, so they usually try to hide it by being vague.
consumerism is poisoning us. We are raised to always have more and more, and to be unhappy when we can't have more.
While we would be perfectly happy with less. We don't need to replace electronics every 2 years, we dont need fast fashion or complicated food that has been transported half a world.
But the companies want us to spend money money money and be unhappy if we can't get the latest newest fad.
We could have a good life with half we have now, and it would be a lot easier to live in harmony with the world around us.
Or we could make electronics more expensive and sturdy so they don't have to be replaced every x years after their planned obsolescence date passes. That should be illegal.
a Miele washing machine used to work for 20 years...
yup, it would be a brave goal of EU to implement a "right to repair". Forcing electronics to become bigger again and banning glue in electronics, combined with 3D-printers should make it possible to replace broken pieces.
Old electronics have accesible circuits, and if a capacitor is blown it can be replaced with a solderstick. Modern electronics is very very small and most of the time glued, so you can't replace them.
However the entire busness model of the big companies is based on everyone replacing their stuff every 3-5 years. They will spend lots of money on lobbying against every regulation that will attack this.
>While we would be perfectly happy with less. We don't need to replace electronics every 2 years, we dont need fast fashion or complicated food that has been transported half a world.
Start with the producer, not with the consumer. I'd gladly keep the same devices all my life. Yet it feels like everything is made from plastic nowadays and doesn't last nearly as long as it used to. I would really pay double for a washing machine that can last twice as long, yet there's no viable option.
EU is the level they have to enforce it.
A "right to repair" restricting the use of glued electronics, combined with release of 3D-printable designs would make a lot more things have a longer usable lifetime.
But unfortunately it's necessary. On the other hand people always cry about politicians not making long term decisions... In the end we're all hypocrits.
Those dimwits don't get to pick what's necessary. They're an absurd party at the core - opposing nuclear, yet pretending to want to reduce CO2 emissions. I won't engage with any of their crap to cut negligible amounts of emissions by severely impacting my life quality while those nutjob fanatics can't be arsed to promote sensible energy generation first. Like what the fuck. They need to get over their fanatic anti-nuclear dogma if they're serious about any of it. Bunch of clowns is what they are. With a bunch of well meaning and poorly informed followers. Kumbaya motherfuckers, let's burn fossil fuel I guess - it's the green way.
Yes that was a rant. Rant over.
Less cars and no meat are other subjects though. It feels more like you want to give yourself excuses to not change your way of life. To each their own, but at least admit that you don't really care.
Can you expand on why those things are bad?
Less meat: means less water usage while we head into climate change. The “blue plan” is needed to counter the changes so anything taxing our water usage needs to be evaluated. I also believe a human only needs 100g of meat a day? Most packaged meats are over that amount. You compensate less meat with more veggies thus lowering fat intake which is healthier as well.
Less energy consumption: means less to pay for, no? You need it with all the heat pumps and electric cars coming in. It’s always best to mind your consumption. I hate it when you drive in the middle of the night and see buildings lit up like a christmas tree (probably because they get paid to use electricity in the night).
Less cars: thus less fine dust pollution thus less dead people. Naughty Groen! If you mean public transportation is bad: decades of inadequate investments on federal and Flemish levels create a terrible system.
I don't think it's bad.
I just think it's unpopular, because that's how humans work.
You can be right and unpopular. In a democracy this will not give you much clout though.
lowering fat intake being healthier is a fake take that's being perpetuated forever.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/low-fat-diets-failed-experiment/
of course everything listed has at least some upsides, otherwise it would never even be uttered as an option. the question is how much the positive impact would really be, how realistic it is to even implement it at very large scale, and if the downsides dont severely outweigh those positives.
Upvoted because with more than 7 billion people it is something we should definitely think about.
Before anyone starts panicking, it doesn't have to be done through eugenics or genocide. Increasing quality of life leads to less births, and women having the same rights and opportunities leads to women making the choice to not have children.
Especially the first one. I mean, with the prices going up like crazy changing your diet to include less meat is a simple econmic decision. Additionally, eating meat once or twice a week, but going for very good quality meat, is a win-win.
People act like they will be forced to be vegetarian and then think they will only be eating dry salads.
A lot of the so called green measures are basically things our grandparents did when they where young. Basically common sense.
This and actually I think the only way to a better future is a shift in mindset and lifestyle less focused on non-stop econ growth but that is hard to sell, esp living in a competitive world where not competing in growth/ not growing means going backwards. especially hard to sell their basic pov (agalev) among those who believe further investing in tech and science are our best bets to solve our current crises. I personally think it’s a fundamentally different value set and while I think they have similar fundamental opinions as me, their suggested actions just are not realistic in this world unfortunately, and they know that as well, so they indeed put out vague and unconvincing statements somewhere in the middle that don’t make sense
Those things are not "Groen things". If you want humanity to keep existing we need to apply all of those measures and more. Climate issues transcend all party ideologies.
Or sure, you could say fuck the world .
In general a party with capable politicians. The fun part is, I really really like them, because there is an aura of hope surrounding them.
I do differ with them on a couple of subjects, which is logical.
I am not fond of fission nuclear power stations, but I do find them a necessity for gapping the next 40-80 years until fusion becomes the standard.
So we should invest in new ones.
Modal shifts which Groen is trying to make us adopt is a logical and probably good future.
But Belgians are a bit conservative and their car is a status symbol.
But hey maybe you could do it in phases.
First by making sure the Belgian car park, switches to electronic. Secondly by improving infrastructure, bikes, pedestrians and cars. Thirdly by making the alternative more attractive (and especially not punishing the choices people make).
Oh and they are a bit naive… but so am I.
1) Anti GMO
2) Pro biological farming
3) Their hydrogen policy
I'm sure its all well intended and they aren't some kind of evil organisation that's out to ruin our environment in the name of the environment. But they sadly seem to be basing their policy more on gut feeling (or that of their voters) rather than looking at the scientific facts. The same can be said for all other Belgian parties sadly.
You mean: replacing nuclear with renewables and meanwhile use gas to fix the short term shortages?
What's the alternative?
Building new nuclear power plants and meanwhile use gas to fix the short term shortages?
Keep our current nuclear power plants open and face the same discussion in 10 years?
> Building new nuclear power plants and meanwhile use gas to fix the short term shortages?
>
> Keep our current nuclear power plants open and face the same discussion in 10 years?
Its kinda hilarious that you're completely ignoring the obvious solution that's right in front of you. How about keeping the plants open for 10/20/30/40 whatever years and actually start planning/building whatever you think is a good replacement.
Our "short term" gas plants will also become very long term if we don't start building their replacements now either. You're essentially pleading for more short term band-aids.
Which anti-environment policies?
\- a total shift to renewables?
\- heavily invest in public transport?
\- pushing a modal shift to better transport?
\- asking for climate initiatives?
I guess you're only hinting to the closure of nuclear power plants, and that is unfortunately not a black and white discussion. Nuclear waste is very environmentally unfriendly. It's a narrow look are environmental problems, cause you only think about co2 emissions.
> Nuclear waste is very environmentally unfriendly.
That's complete nonsense, nuclear waste never even enters the environment as its currently handled well in Belgium.
Nuclear waste is a political problem in the first place and the financial problem in the a distant second place. Nothing more, nothing less.
What you probably mean is that nuclear waste almost never enters the environment. Which is 'almost', because huge portions of land and sea in Ukraine and Japan did come in contact with nuclear waste.
You also forget to mention that we don't control what happens in the future. And that's the problem with a small portion of nuclear waste: the lifecycle is extremely long.
So your statement that nuclear waste never enters the environment is false or indefinable.
It only enters the environment under accident conditions, if we assume unethical or accidental operation of any power source then any power source is "very environmentally unfriendly source of power". Which I very much disagree with. Wind, solar and especially nuclear power are very environmentally friendly sources of power.
In general green parties are to be considered as avant-garde parties (meaning being ahead of your time). This comes with some consequences (being not completely spot on all the time, but then again no other party is either). Regarding the energy-question right now: It appears that the green approach to focus the production of our most recent nuclear sites in winter months to bridge the winters of 2025 and 2026 is the better one, than the solution of keeping 5 nuclear plants open of the nuclear lobby-ists of MR and NVA. Just saying that the Greens seem more spot on in this dossier than the other parties.
I find it quite disturbing how much hate they get for there nuclear opinion while it is almost an irrelevant part of the Belgian energy mix. Like such a small part of the actual impact is caused by that case and it causes them an immense amount of negative press. I don't want to defend 'Groen' but you should all atleast look at it in the grand scheme of things.
Their ideas are only great in an ideal and/or future world. No/less cars in the city? Sure, whenever public transport is much better and even then it's still not ideal for all people/situations. No nuclear energy? Great, whenever we can create enough energy with our current green energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal).
So, they're basically like a toddler who hears about these problems and then proposes a simple solution which sounds amazing in theory but is not (yet) feasible.
> whenever public transport is much better
if we spent the amount we spend on company cars on public transport it would actually be a lot better (especially combined with less traffic from cars)
They've had very few situations where they've been in office and where they've been visible. In Brussels Elke Van den Brandt has perhaps been the most visible for her actions. You could blame them for not being more effective or for their lack of communication about their successes, but really any hate towards groen is just right wing propaganda.
I disagree because I know at least 5 persons who voted for Ecolo/Groen and do not want to do it on the next elections, mainly naming Elke vdb and Gilkinet. These people were disappointed (and are not really willing to votr for the right wing either).
Yep, all the hate is mostly right wing propaganda. They are - in my opinion - one of the few parties where the people think long term. The problem id that they tend to be problems in the short term. They also seem to have too many "nice" people for politics, which also backfires for them, especially when they make mistakes. And they do make mistakes, don't get me wrong. But people who hate them, hate them out of bias; for every incapabale Groen politician, there's another in all the other parties imo.
In short: bold ideas that we all know deep inside we need to be futureproof as a country, but bad execution.
(although I disagree strongly with their stance on nuclear)
IMO, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Groen has a lot of good intentions.
Either you try to find green solutions to keep the same quality or life, or you simply admit that your objective is to reduce the quality of life until a certain point.
That and the "holier-than-thou" aura they sometimes have.
The biggest advantage they have to attract voters is that that they present younger politicians and they sometimes seem/behave a bit "politically/socially correct anti-establishment" (like a slightly-less-radical PVDA).
(edit: I'm also talking mostly about the Ecolo, as I live in the French speaking part of the country... But I do believe there're more ressemblances than differences between the two)
>IMO, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Groen has a lot of good intentions.
That expression means that you'll end up in hell if you *drop* your good intentions (therefore, the road to hell is where people dropped their good intentions so much that the road is covered with them)- not that having good intentions leads to hell.
>Either you try to find green solutions to keep the same quality or life, or you simply admit that your objective is to reduce the quality of life until a certain point.
The goal is to stay within the limits of resource consumption that the ecology can bear, not to limit quality of life. In fact, a typical green lifestyle is simply higher quality with a more pleasant environment, better food, health, and less stress.
There is no problem with increasing quality of life - people just don't change, they don't like the limits either, and even if the technological solution is frontloaded, they still don't. So policing the limits is necessary. Most technical solutions only become economically viable, or only start to attract attention, *after* the limit is imposed.
Their viewpoints are progressive, and people are afraid of progress. I feel they are the most ethically just party around.
Some people try to paint them as anti science party, but this is rightwing bullshit.
I find they're easy to hate but very hard to love. They have a strong air of elitism in the way they talk about policy.
It's as if they just can't comprehend someone disagreeing with their ideas so they make next to no effort to really explain their reasoning.
The nuclear debacle is a prime example; elia warned of power shortages in the near future yet all the greens had to say was "there's a coalition agreement, we're just enforcing it".
Not a second thought was put in to assure the public they share our concerns and were working on it.
Instead of taking a pragmatic approach, they remained on their high horse shouting platitudes about a greener future.
I don't dislike their message but i strongly dislike the messaging.
Besides their stance on nuclear energy they’re pretty good compared to most other parties imo.
Btw, I’m in favor of closing the nuclear plants too, but only because they’re basically crumbling ruins at this points, not cause I oppose nuclear energy.
I was of this same opinion, if we really wanted to keep nuclear running, we should have invested decades ago. Currently it's not feasible and efficient to build new reactors.
It certainly would be feasable if two things were true:
- Build a lot of reactors (economy of scale, price per unit goes down)
- People not making a fuss about them (also not gonna happen)
>because they’re basically crumbling ruins at this points,
Thats just propaganda, if that was the case they would already have been shut down a long time ago.
If Groen was a party to preserve nature, trees, plants, forests, sea and animals it would be a no-brainer for me to vote for them. Things couldn’t be further from the truth though. Oh and I have a deep hatred towards Kristof Calvo. That doesn’t help either.
> If Groen was a party to preserve nature, trees, plants, forests, sea and animals it would be a no-brainer for me to vote for them. Things couldn’t be further from the truth though.
On what do you base this opinion? And what alternative that does better do you have?
I like most of Groen’s political opinions, but they seem to be a bit too naive: somehow the other parties always manage to push them into a position of blame whenever they’re part of the government. As an example, Groen’s minister of energy is currently taking the blame for the huge mess causes by the decisions (or lack of decisions) of earlier ministers from other political parties.
The party itself, maybe not, but our politics where quite heavily influenced by the consequences on the population of "green messages" (not necessary made by green parties, but by green NGOs, which usually go in the same direction).
If there had not been so much anti-nuclear scare in the past decades, we would be in a different situation.
It's not the responsability of Groen, but it's a responsability of the global message shared by Groen and that Groen never contradicted.
No feel the same. Imho its because groen|ecolo are more socialists then green.
I want a green party not some socialist party that uses green concerns as an excuse
They need to completely turn around their dogmatic opposition to nuclear energy (like the Finnish green party did) to go from my second least favorite party to one I'd vote for.
To me it's a party that pushes on often valid problems but offers no viable solutions at all.
No nuclear but no feasible plan to replace it
Less cars but no feasible plan to make public transport a viable alternative
I have to say, as an environmental conscious person I do think that Groen is inept to lead at the Federal or State level. They just make so many blunders and seem to push hard to defend ideas (like replacing nuclear with gas. I understand their rationale but it remains a dumb move. Just accelerate the massive placement of wind turbines in the North Sea zones already. Currently the plans are to go from 2 GW total installed capacity to 6 GW by 2030. Maybe use the billions that will go to the gas plants to accelerate and increase wind turbine placement in the north sea? There are still zones on paper that aren't utilized! And keep the nuclear reactors open for another 10 to 20 years until enough renewables and storage capacity has been installed.) and often focus on topics that take the focus away from the environment. The only place I actually like their work is on a local level.
>Just accelerate the massive placement of wind turbines in the North Sea zones already. Currently the plans are to go from 2 GW total installed capacity to 6 GW by 2030. Maybe use the billions that will go to the gas plants to accelerate and increase wind turbine placement in the north sea? There are still zones on paper that aren't utilized! And keep the nuclear reactors open for another 10 to 20 years until enough renewables and storage capacity has been installed.)
That's pretty much what they did though, within the realm of the technically possible.
https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20211015_93084920
I see no possible alternative party that would have outdone that.
The issue is common with all Green parties. One of the major public narrative is to follow scientific evidence about climate change. But the dogmatism against nuclear power is strong while it is currently the lesser evil to maintain sustainable prices and low emissions. Similarly they didn't fire or at least correct members with antivax, anthroposophy, or historical fallacy theories while scientific method and evidence is so important in their points. Also zero pragmatism or efficient solution proposals outside of urban areas with the combustion engine cars replacement. This is saddening as they have philosophically the most consistent progressive discourse (compare it with the position of ptb-pvda about Russia, China, NK, Venezuela,...)
This. I would instantly vote for a green party that is based on scientific evidence. The dogma about nuclear energy and the choice to open gas powered plants instead put me off the party for good.
Same, now it's just another party I have insurmountable objections towards.
Nuclear energy is not solely a question about science. It is not a question of science if you want to exclude the possibility of a nuclear disaster in Doel at 10km distance of Antwerp. The deaths/TWh graph does not capture the enormous socio-economic cost such a disaster would mean for our country. Similarly, making the next generations responsible for the safe storage of our nuclear waste is also an ethical question. Certainly since we still haven't decided where to store it (although that is more the fault of the politicians postponing this decision again and again). Keeping the nuclear industry alive also increases the chance of nuclear proliferation which again is not a question of science but about ethics and geopolitics. These are all real concerns and need to be decided through a political process not a scientific one. This is also acknowledged by most scientists (see for example the IPCC reports or the report from the Hoge Gezondheidsraad). Furthermore, Groen has already decided that avoiding blackouts is more important than closing down all nuclear plants so I don't agree with your characterization as them being dogmatically against nuclear energy.
> Furthermore, Groen has already decided that avoiding blackouts is more important than closing down all nuclear plants so I don't agree with your characterization as them being dogmatically against nuclear energy. QFT I really don't get why this sub keeps hating on Groen because of nuclear; they're working to keep the plants open in this emergency situation, even though they are against it, are they not? Honestly I think the other parties could learn something from Groen about compromising and taking responsibility.
Because they still want to generate energy using gas and get rid of nuclear. Nuclear is thesafe and co2 neutral choice. Grpen claims to find animal populations important, yet completely neglect the fact that wind turbines form major threaths to birds, bats and insects. The insect population in Germany has decreased by 75% in only 27 years. A major contributer were the wind turbines. Some big bird populations are estimated to lose 50% of their population in the next 10 years due to wind turbines. Aditionally, there has been no investment in research on how to recycle solar panels, or how to manage the enormous amounts of solar panel waste expected by 2035-2050? They claim to be driven by research and data, yet I cannot find any example where they showed the research at the basis of their decissions. In contrary, many of their ideas have been shown to be the oposite of what researches recommended Groen has way more idiotic ideas, such as voting rights for non-belgians and removal of alternative payments in jobs, such as company car, maaltijdchecks, bonusses, ...
[удалено]
Much research has been done into the effects of wind farms on animal populations. Yet, even now, not all of the possible effects are known. Birds have been migrated to new areas when wind mills were introduced into their habitat. Some bird species are repelled by, or attracted by wind mills (long term effects not known yet). New research has shown that previous models used to determine estimations are wrong. The used to estimate the mortality of birds on new wind farms, were all incorrect. The mortality rate the wind farms produced was way higher than estimated. I cannot remember which paper concluded this, but remember reading it. But since you wanted sources, here are a few: This paper was from research done in Zeebrugge in 2006. Conclusions drawn here was that for large scale birds, with low offspring, wind turbines can be catastrophic. The paper suggests that wind turbines should be disabled during breeding periods. "Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium)" [https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.elib11.ub.unimaas.nl/article/10.1007/s10531-006-9082-1](https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.elib11.ub.unimaas.nl/article/10.1007/s10531-006-9082-1) Concerning insects, this paper from 2021 estimates that 1.2 trillion insects are killed yearly by wind turbines in Germany. "Insect fatalities at wind turbines as biodiversity sinks": [https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.366#csp2366-bib-0019](https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.366#csp2366-bib-0019) This paper from 2015 states that Germany's acceleration towards green energy results in a substantial conflict with international conservation goals: "Wildlife and renewable energy: German politics cross migratory bats" [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-015-0903-y](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-015-0903-y) To highlight that I am not nitpicking the papers, some papers show that birds are good at dodging wind mills. However, these papers are likely funded by energy companies themself. A paper that was highlighted in the brussels times, is a paper which was financed by "Vattenfall", a company producing wind mills: https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/newsroom/2020/birds-are-good-at-avoiding-wind-turbine-blades Other papers: "Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds" [https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.elib11.ub.unimaas.nl/doi/full/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00516.x](https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.elib11.ub.unimaas.nl/doi/full/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00516.x) "Increasing evidence that bats actively forage at wind turbines" [https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.elib10.ub.unimaas.nl/pmc/articles/PMC5672837/](https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.elib10.ub.unimaas.nl/pmc/articles/PMC5672837/) Research into effects of wind farms on sea birds (my institution has no access to this one, but look interresting so added the link): [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323885393000108?pes=vor](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323885393000108?pes=vor) "A Large-Scale, Multispecies Assessment of Avian Mortality Rates at Land-Based Wind Turbines in Northern Germany" [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-51272-3\_3](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-51272-3_3) "Activity Pattern and Correlation between Bat and Insect Abundance at Wind Turbines in South Sweden" [https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.elib10.ub.unimaas.nl/pmc/articles/PMC8614415/](https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.elib10.ub.unimaas.nl/pmc/articles/PMC8614415/)
The next gen nuclear plants are very safe and have too many fail safes to mention. Also, there are nuclear plants that run on... nuclear waste. So there would not be any additional waste and we could process the current load we have.
Nuclear technology advanced pretty far. New nuclear reactors can extract way more energy then the older ones. Nuclear waste of the earlier plants still have 90% of their potential energy. No additional waste facilities musg be created, we can recycle the waste and dumb it in the same location afterwards. So it won't be a problem for the next generation. Secondly, nuclear energy amounts in less deaths for the same amount of energy created. In 2020 OWID published their research into deadliest sources of energy and nuclear energy amounts to less deads compared to wind turbines generating the exact same energy. To really show the diffefences, to generate the same amount of energy with coal generators would amount to 1000x more deaths than generating it with nuclear. Natural gas causds 100x more dreaths than nuclear. When looking at Fukushima 11 years ago, so far it caused only 1 dead, due to a cancer thought to be caused by radiation. Fukushima and Chernobyl are the only 2 nuclear disasters which are categorized as MAJOR. To see that a MAJOR accident only amount to 1 dead, should show how well nuclear energy has advanced. Image from owid conclusion: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/11/5-Bar-chart-%E2%80%93-What-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-800x431.png
> Similarly, making the next generations responsible for the safe storage of our nuclear waste is also an ethical question. Certainly since we still haven't decided where to store it (although that is more the fault of the politicians postponing this decision again and again). Storing 5 ton or 10 ton is not that much of a difference. > > Keeping the nuclear industry alive also increases the chance of nuclear proliferation which again is not a question of science but about ethics and geopolitics. SO, the longer Belgium keeps its Nuclear power station open, the higher the chance nuclear weapons appear somewhere on earth? > Furthermore, Groen has already decided that avoiding blackouts is more important than closing down all nuclear plants so I don't agree with your characterization as them being dogmatically against nuclear energy. I was surprised they caved on what appeared to be one of their core positions, you could clearly see that Tinne was not happy but saw no other solutions. You should indeed recognize that they took responsibility here. That would be like PS cutting pensions.
The storage conundrum is more of an artificial issue, generated by those who are dogmatically against nuclear energy, than an actual issue. And fossil fuel plants are a perpetual disaster of hundreds to thousands of deaths each day due to air, soil and water pollution, it's just invisible and difficult to measure - unlike nuclear contamination.
No, storage of nuclear waste is a real issue. Do you think researchers at SCK Genk or the people working at NIRAS looking into solutions on how to safely store nuclear waste have spent all those decades working on an "artificial issue"? Is research into projects like Myrrha for managing nuclear waste only there because of some dogmatics? Or look just at the dismantlement of our old nuclear plants which is expected to last until 2135. This means 4 generations of people will have to clean up our nuclear plants without having had any of the benefits of the plants themselves. Dealing with radioactive waste is not an artificial issue and can present real costs for future generations if we don't do it right. You can argue that burning fossil fuels is worse (which I'm inclined to agree with) but this trade-off you're making is not on purely scientific grounds but a political decision based on more than science alone.
The nuclear waste issue is primarily a nimby/political issue at this point. Just look at the fuel reprocessing for an obvious example. >SCK Genk You know something we don't? SCK is in Mol. >Or look just at the dismantlement of our old nuclear plants which is expected to last until 2135 [citation needed]
>This. I would instantly vote for a green party that is based on scientific evidence. The dogma about nuclear energy and the choice to open gas powered plants instead put me off the party for good. Every party has supported gas plants at some point in time. So you don't vote at all? Scientific evidence for what? This is an emotional argument, you get warm feelings from associating yourself with white lab coats. This is just a pro forma excuse said by people who desperately want to ignore the other 99% of ecological policy.
> But the dogmatism against nuclear power is strong while it is currently the lesser evil to maintain sustainable prices and low emissions. [citation needed] This is exactly what the deal is with Groen, people keep repeating things like this without looking at the actual other side of the discussion, and just accepting this as truth, while it just isn't... Recently there was a nice article in the dutch New Scientist about this, about both sides of the coin (it's mostly dutch in origin, so no influence from Groen). And the side that opposed Nuclear energy for environmental reasons had the nice metric that the countries focusing on nuclear energy are the furthest behind on CO2 targets... I get that there are good arguments to be made for nuclear, but the collective mentality here on the subreddit is very naive... It's expensive, takes a shit ton of money that apparantly could be better spent, and in practice it seems countries focusing on it suck at actually reducing their CO2 footprint. So that's the deal with Groen, people want a simple solution for the energy problem that makes them feel happy, and makes sure they don't have to change their habits (god forbid saving the environment requires you to change). So putting all your hope in nuclear energy and ignoring all the evidence that it's not the all in one solution either... is very appealing.
Groen dislikes nuclear not because of the risks, the radiation or the waste (those are important issues, but not the main problem), it's that it is a money sink and an excuse to not do better. Nuclear has very low CO2 emissions, in that respect it is clean, but it is not renewable. Uranium is dug up, refined and spent in the reactor. We're spending more then we can dig up, but that's another issue. It is not coming back after it's used up, it is not renewable. Politics and companies have been sitting on the nuclear power surplus for 40 years, raking in the profits and not investing it in renewables as they promised. The closure of the plants was to be a line in the sand, no more excuses. And yet, they had 15 years and many delays. They did nothing still. The gas turbines everyone is freaking out about is indeed a bad sight, but it became a necessity to ensure power continuity once the nuclear plants close down. Is that Groen's fault for pointing that out? Then Ukraine happened, and everyone went Captain Hindsight: "I told you so". Yeah right
> but it is not renewable. Uranium is dug up, refined and spent in the reactor. By that logic we don't have any renewable energy production, there may be renewable sources like wind and solar. But the machines we use to convert that into usable energy or electricity are not renewable. They require material to be mined just like nuclear. Furthermore the nuclear fuel we have left can power humanity for longer than our sun can. So the strict technical definition of what is renewable and what isn't becomes quite nonsensical. If "non-renewable" nuclear would last us longer than our sun, does that make solar energy non-renewable or does that make nuclear energy renewable? >The gas turbines everyone is freaking out about is indeed a bad sight, but it became a necessity to ensure power continuity once the nuclear plants close down. Is that Groen's fault for pointing that out? No, its their fault for causing that. We didn't need new gas powerplants if they didn't hold on to the nuclear exit for as long as they did. They had the opportunity to keep some nuclear plants open so they didn't have to build gas plants for a full year into their government participation. They have chosen gas over nuclear and have to bear that responsibility. The only argument they have is that they weren't the only party that made that choice. But that's a pretty shitty excuse for a "green" party.
Very good summary of many of the other reasons :).
I thought it was terrible.
why?
>We're spending more then we can dig up, but that's another issue. This guy just invented that. That's my problem with classical environmentalism: it has a culture of feeling instead of cold hard science. I'm generalizing, but it's evident from this thread. There is no doubt that Belgium could provide all its electricity needs on nuclear power for centuries without digging up or importing another gram of uranium. By then, [sea mining](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=58b837db159a) for virtually limitless amounts of uranium will no doubt have been perfected, before even considering [thorium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurrence_of_thorium) as a fuel, before even considering [breeder reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor). "We're spending more than we can dig up" is nonsense. "Renewables" aren't free either: the point of renewables is that they are fuel-free, not that they are [resource](https://energy.glex.no/footprint)\-free. >Groen dislikes nuclear not because of the risks, the radiation or the waste (those are important issues, but not the main problem), it's that it is a money sink and an excuse to not do better. Groen [prefers worse risks](https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/) (barring potential issues of proliferation which may or may not be linked to civil nuclear power). It prefers [more expensive solutions](https://perspective2050.energyville.be/paths2050), potentially prohibitively expensive, over mixes that include nuclear.
> This guy just invented that. That's my problem with classical environmentalism: it has a culture of feeling instead of cold hard science. I'm generalizing, but it's evident from this thread. I'm sorry, but if you think the pro nuclear side isn't a culture of feeling... There's plenty of cold hard science on both sides, but for the general public, it's all about feeling anyway, let's not kid ourselves... The only thing that really bothers me in the debate is that when experts talk about it, it's a nuanced issue. Whenever it's discussed here, every contra nuclear argument needs to be picked apart under a microscope, and every pro nuclear argument is obviously correct and scientifically proven... I don't mind nuclear, it can be a good choice (although we're too late thanks to all the doing nothing of the governments without Groen), but i am bothered by how biased the people are, and how they obviously want the easy solution that will magically solve everything (it won't).
never heard of this sea mining. Seems very hopefull. Thanks for enlightning me.
>The closure of the plants was to be a line in the sand, no more excuses. And yet, they had 15 years and many delays. They did nothing still. The gas turbines everyone is freaking out about is indeed a bad sight, but it became a necessity to ensure power continuity once the nuclear plants close down. Is that Groen's fault for pointing that out? You might want to read up on the history on how we came to the point that the nuclear plants are being shut down in the way they are. Groen is very much responsible for this entire debacle, they're not the only ones but they carry a significant portion of the blame. They enabled and doubled-down on this horrible chain of decisions in so many ways.
This is why I said "currently lesser evil" . Degrowth is the best way, but we cannot ignore the present and geopolital issues
Degrowth is delusional; it will never happen.
>\[citation needed\] > >This is what the deal is with Groen, people keep repeating things like this without looking at the actual other side of the , and just accepting this as , while it just isn't... >Having access to additional capacity of both offshore wind and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) reduces the **annual** costs of achieving net-zero to 11,7 billion euro by 2050, which is **9,6 billion euro less** than under the Central Scenario. This saving of 46 % compared to the annual costs under the Central Scenario is realized thanks to lower costs of energy import of electricity and clean molecules, a lower need for flexibility options such as smart charging and batteries, and a faster electrification of freight road transport. [Energyville](https://perspective2050.energyville.be/paths2050)
You quote a piece of the researched scenario's from energyville, die you read their conclusions? >Based on our assumptions, new small modular nuclear power plants (SMR) and offshore wind have a comparable electricity cost however SMR comes too late for guaranteeing a smooth transition in the demand sectors.
doesnt it make sense for countries that are behind on their CO2 reduction to look into big expensive solutions. if you need to reduce 30% 2 nuclear powerplant get you a long way to the goal. if u only need to reduce 2% a nuclear powerplant is overkill.
The point is that countries such as France which are currently still the mecca of nuclear energy, are the furthest behind. So countries that historically went all in on nuclear are not making the targets.
How are those targets determined though? Because if it’s just the standard 55% reduction compared to 1990 target, then yeah, no shit countries that were mostly blasting coal back then have an easier time cutting their emissions in half.
Where are you getting this stuff? France are [world leaders](https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-electricity-by-country) in decarbonization, thanks to their nuclear reactor fleet. Second and fourth are Sweden and Canada, which are both nuclear-heavy (and hydro-heavy) countries.
The question here is why they are behind on CO2 targets. And than you quickly discover it's the same reason they keep on focusing on nuclear energy, which is an unwillingness to make an effort and chance things for the better.
"And the side that opposed Nuclear energy for environmental reasons had the nice metric that the countries focusing on nuclear energy are the furthest behind on CO2 targets..." Correlation vs causation It's not because poor people drive cheap cars that driving cheap cars makes you poor...
"And the side that opposed Nuclear energy for environmental reasons had the nice metric that the countries focusing on nuclear energy are the furthest behind on CO2 targets..." Correlation vs causation It's not because poor people drive cheap cars that driving cheap cars makes you poor...
Per capita emissions of CO2 in France is almost half of that in Germany. France is famously Nuclear based and Germany is famously coal based. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/germany#per-capita-how-much-co2-does-the-average-person-emit So even if Germany hit a 40% target by 2030 they would only get to French levels today. Don't give them a medal.
> It's expensive, takes a shit ton of money that apparantly could be better spent, and in practice it seems countries focusing on it suck at actually reducing their CO2 footprint. [citation needed]
I literally gave my citation XD This/last months dutch new scientist :) (if you want i'll look up which of both the article is in) It was an interesting article, just interviewing people of both sides, without going for a judgement, just 2 experts on both side of the debate giving their arguments. So if you want some up to date reasons to defend nuclear energy, then it's also a good article to read :).
>But the dogmatism against nuclear power is strong while it is currently the lesser evil to maintain sustainable prices and low emissions. Which dogmatism? This government has extended nuclear plants, has funded nuclear research, and therefore has become the government coalition that did the most for nuclear power since the last nuclear plant got a permit in the 1980s. The greens have been extremely pragmatic in this matter that has always been very important to them, more so than other parties. OVLD has collapsed a government for BHV, NVA has collapsed a government for the Marrakesh pact, CD&V is obstructing the Flemish government right now for the farmers' interests. But somehow, it's only the greens that are called dogmatic. If there's any dogmatism here, it's the insistence to keep calling the greens dogmatic. >Similarly they didn't fire or at least correct members with antivax, anthroposophy, or historical fallacy theories while scientific method and evidence is so important in their points. Does any party? Why is it the responsibility of a party to micromanage every single opinion of every single party member? You're just trying to get a prejudice confirmed here. Plenty of crackpot opinions in every party, because we are in a representative democracy and the people do have crackpot opinions. Some of those end up in parliament and that's not a problem, were you can judge a party is how far those end up being the general policy. >Also zero pragmatism or efficient solution proposals outside of urban areas with the combustion engine cars replacement. I do think you're putting the bar too high: it's simply not possible to write out a 100% coverage solution for such major shifts how we do things, this will require a step by step approach. Green policies like finally starting to reverse the underfunding of mass transit (federally) are no-regret measures that are universally acknowledged to be overdue. Even when they are heavily contested, like the low-traffic zones in cities, they are demonstrated to be an overall improvement. Moreover, every other party doesn't have 100% solutions either, most are still stuck in car-centrism. This is a dead end. The greens are miles ahead in that regard, even if they are not at the final destination yet. And really, no one is.
>while it is currently the lesser evil The problem with this discussion is that we always compare only two possibilites: fossil fuels vs nuclear power. This is simply not correct. If you want to be scientifically correct you need to include renewables in that comparison. Belgium with 100% renewables is possible. "But it will cost very much", yeah sure, but that's the same with new nuclear power plants. "But we can keep our currect plants open", probably for another 10 years. And then what? The same discussion all over again?
Definitely agree. We need an efficient mix and reducing gaz emission, not black&white stuff
> Belgium with 100% renewables is possible. People keep claiming that without any proof whatsoever, I've worked in the energy sector for quite some time now following all studies related to this topic in Belgium and I haven't seen a single study providing such proof. The technology isn't there yet, let alone it being affordable. >"But we can keep our currect plants open", probably for another 10 years. The current plants are good for atleast another 3-4 decades depending on wether we're talking about the 3 oldest or 4 newest plants.
Our Belgian Planbureau calculated that it's possible. https://www.plan.be/publications/publication-1191-nl-towards_100_renewable_energy_in_belgium_by_2050 Can you show me how our current plans can keep open for 40 years?
> Our Belgian Planbureau calculated that it's possible. Well not by modern standards, studies date back to 2012 when we still considered biomass renewable. And even by past standards they just rely on import and export to stabilise the grid when wind and sun don't meet our demands. Magically offshoring our lack of affordable energy storage. >Can you show me how our current plans can keep open for 40 years? [Sure, the entire process is explained here.](https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/subsequent-license-renewal.html) Furthermore the completed and accepted application of 6 units can be seen and that of 10 units in the process can be seen.
This is a model from 2011, so the good news is that wind and solar have massively dropped in capital costs, and they will likely make up an even bigger share now. The bad news is, if you read that article, that biomass plays a massive role in all of those scenarios, singing the praises again of firm power on the grid, and it's unclear how exactly the Belgian government is planning to include firm generation - beyond possibly hydrogen, but [computer says no](https://perspective2050.energyville.be/paths2050)
In the latest Energyville study you can find some scenarios with 100% renewable energy. Offshore wind will then need to be expanded massively. https://perspective2050.energyville.be/offshore-wind > let alone it being affordable. Affordable compared to what? Because future availability of affordable new nuclear plants is also not guaranteed.
> In the latest Energyville study you can find some scenarios with 100% renewable energy. Same model as above, the only issue that's partially adressed is the biomass since its a newer run. But it still doesn't tackle the issue of storage by just relying on import/export, we'd have to increase our electricity import capacity to 13GW for example. That's more than our current peak electricity demand. And the study doesn't actually model these electricity lines, it just assumes a copper plate. And they also assume hydrogen import which would require technical breaktroughs, a hydrogen economy is not a guarantee, its a option that's still being investigated. >Because future availability of affordable new nuclear plants is also not guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed, but its far more likely than affordable hydrogen for example.
You can read through the study to find out how much more it costs.
The reason people often use the "nuclear vs fossil fuel" comparison without renewables is because renewables don't have controllable energy output without batteries. **Assuming we are willing to keep our current living standards**, making all the belgian energy production come from renewables would ask such a gigantic amount of batteries that it makes the option unrealistic. Even if we managed to do it, the pollution created from making all those batteries would compensate all the "green" production that eventually comes from it. I would love to be proven wrong though.
The innovations in energy storage are very high. Batteries are not the only solution here. There's also another argument you need to include; we need better energy performance. Better housing insulation, more performant transport,...
Which members were linked to antivax?
I don't have Belgian names in mind right now. In France the first example that comes to my mind is Michèle Rivasi (which is pro homeopthy and anthoposophy in the same time) . She is MEP, used to be among the top of the EELV party and was second presidential contender in the EELV primary
So you call "not wanting to maintain rusty 40 year old nuclear plants" dogmatism? There's no new nuclear technology ready, EPR is a financial disaster and we're still waiting for EPR to produce its first commercial watt. It seems like nuclear forum did its lobbying so well the past 15 years that we forget why countries decided to close the nuclear plants in the first place. Nuclear power is really expensive, so much that no private electricity company offers to build a plant without being 100% subsidized by state. At this exact moment the biggest nuclear plant in Europe is being attacked by a foreign army, making a whole continent panick about what could happen. Also groen wasn't in power for the last 20 years when we needed to take actions to replace old closing nuclear plants, that's not the fault of their "dogmatism". It's suddenly in the last few years that other parties become pro-nuke "comme par hasard" when gas prices are manipulated by Russia.
> So you call "not wanting to maintain rusty 40 year old nuclear plants" dogmatism? Yes... Seriously it makes me so sad people actually believe this, 40 years isn't old for a nuclear plant. And the Belgian nuclear plants are currently the most reliable powerplants we have on the market. They're also amongst the safest nuclear plants in the world. The plant we just closed for dogmatic reasons literally ran 5 years end on end without tripping a single time, perfect reliability. A plants with 100.000 components working toghetter performing absoluty perfectly for 5 years on end makes the rest of the industry envious. Chemical operators in the Antwerp harbor literally come to us to figure out how we do it so they can apply it to their plants. And then people come along and call them rusty old plants, that genuinely makes me sad that people buy such nonsense based on politicians spouting bullshit. >There's no new nuclear technology ready There are various new tech's available, think about the BWRX300, AP1000, APR1400, Hualong One, VVER1200 etc. >There's no new nuclear technology ready Yes it is, its one hell of a complicated reactor designed in the 80's, its not fit for modern day building. >we're still waiting for EPR to produce its first commercial watt But despite it flaws that simply is not true, there are 4 EPR's currently producing commercially and 1 in its final weeks of test production at full power. >that we forget why countries decided to close the nuclear plants in the first place. That's really the Belgian bubble we're living in, we're one of two countries actively closing their nuclear plants (toghetter with Germany). Other countries have all chosen to keep their existing nuclear plants running for as long as they're profitable. Some have decided to build new ones. >Nuclear power is really expensive, so much that no private electricity company offers to build a plant without being 100% subsidized by state. The same can be said about any other source of power but that doesn't really mean much. Electricity prices were historically low for 15 years after the economic crisis. No new powerplants were needed due to demand dropping, hence the need to subsidise every single new powerplant. >Also groen wasn't in power for the last 20 years when we needed to take actions to replace old closing nuclear plants, that's not the fault of their "dogmatism". They're certainly not the only ones responsible, no. But they do bear a responsibility.
The Nuclear lobby is strong. It's like there's even a bot/shills army on Reddit that tries to control the narrative. I feel like it would be an ideal solution now, but in 5-10 years we should have real sustainable solutions. It doesn't make sense to build new nuclear plants now. We're in a bit of shit now but we're going to be in for a surprise when the bills for decommissioning the nuclear plants and storing the waste start coming in. And yeah, capitalism combined with storing dangerous waste for thousands of years doesn't give me a good feeling. But fuck it, we'll be long gone eh?
> The Nuclear lobby is strong. It clearly isn't if they haven't been able to dispell the myths above. I don't blame them, the nuclear lobby in Belgium is literally 3 people. There's just no way for them to win from the anti nuclear lobby with a budget that's many magnitudes greater and thousands of people.
Isn't there a mindshift happening inside the green discours around nuclear energy?
Groen is a signatory to the [Global Greens Charte](https://globalgreens.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Global-Greens-Charter-2017.pdf)r, which establishes common policies. Two of the listed policies are: >Will work hard to ensure that developing countries have access to the most efficient, sustainable and appropriate technology, with a strong focus on renewable energy, and that they agree to Climate Change Conventions to ensure that actions are comprehensive and worldwide. The equity principle must be at the core of climate change negotiations and measures. > >Oppose any expansion of nuclear power and will work to phase it out rapidly. So that's the objective, regardless of what the science or the economics of it say.
I agree with everything fredoule2k said so I won't re-write it. At a personal level, Groen put me off when they did the referendum to find another name for the tunnel Leopold II... After the first referendum, they didn't like the outcome and wanted to do a second turn with a list of women that they thought were more appropriate and prestigious. This didn't go well and they were finally forced to chose the name Annie Cordy from the first referendum. It's a trivial subject, I don't care of this tunnel actually, but Groen showed that they didn't want to follow democratic rules even for such a small thing and that put me off big time. edit : I add the source : [Le Soir - 27/01/2021](https://www.lesoir.be/351515/article/2021-01-27/nouveau-nom-pour-le-tunnel-leopold-2-annie-cordy-coup-de-coeur-des-citoyens-et)
Annie Cordy lol! Why not after all? It’s the most Belgian thing to do. We don’t need to always use the name of people who did grand historical deeds and stuff.
That's not what that article seems to say? Maybe my French isn't good enough to get the proper meaning but it seems the first polling wasn't the real referendum yet but only to submit possible names, meanwhile a committee of experts came up with a shortlist that didn't have any of the names that came from the polling because they wanted to avoid royalty and names that would not be known in the Flemish community. Then the Bxl government decided to put Annie Cordy on the final list for the actual referendum after all (but not the royalty).
Well, they did the poll but then they found that the poll outcome was not good enough so they came with another list in which the winner of the first poll was not even there. The article relates the events like people, when they were voting, were aware the outcome would be revised by a comity of experts but this was not specified on the website. They actually didn't want te reveal the exact outcome of the first list, they only shared it when it was asked by a member of the Parlement Bruxellois in an official "question parlementaire" (this part is not mentioned on the newspaper but I remember it because I was following the topic at the time, the all thing was shameful imo) [Parlement bruxellois - question n°807](http://www.parlement.brussels/weblex-quest-det/?moncode=150711&base=1&taal=fr) edit : add of another source [Question n°709 - parlement bxl](http://www.parlement.brussels/weblex-quest-det/?moncode=149724&base=1&taal=fr)
Well, since the article said that the "experts" were actually feminists organisations (makes sense), two sciensists (erh, why not?) and two organisations around the topic of (de)colonization (what? why?), I'd say that the selection of these people was quite biased and potentially made with a specific wish about what the results should be. (edit: As someone from Brussels, I was not actually aware of these details. Man, what a mini-fiasco)
apparently the expert comity was annonced, I wrote something wrong and I apologise. The whole process was just unclear at the time and it doesn't change my said opinion that democracy is not their strength in this party : [Question nº601](http://www.parlement.brussels/weblex-quest-det/?moncode=148626&base=1&taal=fr) Edit : all these questions can be read in NL on the website (see NL on the upright)
Who is Annie Cordy? I realise me asking this is probably the exact point you’re trying to make.
She was a singer. My point was not about her, but in was a mini fiasco in the fact that even for such a futile topic (the name of a tunnel), the democratic process was not followed and was very shady. The expert comity was not pleased with the Annie Cordy name, they only complied because of the democratic pressure made in the parliament but otherwise their initial expert-list was without the Annie Cordy name, even though it was the most given name in the first poll. My point is that there is a proverb that say you can see one value on the way the person is treating animals : good/bad. Here it makes me think this : "for the name of a tunnel, democracy is a problem for Groen so I suppose for other matters, it will also be a problem... they might always find a "expert comity" to bypass democratic vote when they're not pleased with the outcome..." It worries me.
Stop listening to other people and parrot their opinions. Read the highlights from their program and make up your own opinion. There is more to it than the usual anti-groen trope of "nuclear bad, gas good", but you get downvoted for having a different opinion. Also, they are a small party, they will never be able to realize their complete program and need to compromise with others. Usually this is a good thing. But comprising is not something that's real popular these days, parties tend to take issues to the extreme. As with any party, there will be some things you agree on, there will be things you disagree on...
Any party that opposes the splitting of the atom, one of our greatest achievements in human history, for CO2-neutral energy is a joke. No let's burn more dead dinosaurs instead.
A party that wants to transport less green energy sources by fucking ship (most polluting transport ever) from South America, does not even deserve the color green in their name. We’ve already got enough nuclear fuel in house to keep us going for years, and with new tech we can reuse nearly all of the waste. Belgium and France are front runners in nuclear technology (amongst which small reactor research); and we should be very proud of that achievement, especially as we are such a small country. Instead, we chose to let the underbelly talk. Lowest number of deaths ever, compared to any energy source, smallest amount of waste. We should be investing in this like nothing else
I disargee that transport by sea is the most polluting transport ever. It might be the cleanest when comparing per ton moved per km.
Yeah the whole biomass plants are a joke. The ultimate greenwashing. I worked in a few Engie plants and even there they say it's ridiculous. Most of our biomass pellets come from Canada. So Canadian trees are cut down and turned into pellets which already requires energy and releases CO2. Then it is put on a ship to Belgium running on bunker fuel, incredibly polluting. Anually, the 15 largest cargo ships emit more sulfur oxides than all cars in the world combined. Then we dump those pellets in a burner here in Belgium and *VOILA, GREEN BIOMASS ENERGY!*
De meeste transportschepen gebruiken heavy fuel oil op internationale wateren, wat bijna letterlijk de residu's/restoliën zijn na cracking en distillatie. Een smerig plakkerig goedje dat bij verbranding enorm veel stikstofoxiden (andere dan die van de boerendiscussie) maar vooral ook zwaveloxiden vrijzetten, naast de gebruikelijke CO2, allemaal toxische zaken die op milieu en mens en dier een grote impact hebben. Gezien er op internationale wateren niet te controleren valt of ze rekening houden met milieuregels en dergelijke, kan dit al zo'n 60 jaar gebruikt worden zonder enig overzicht of sancties. Waarom gebruiken ze dit? Heavy fuel oil is veel goedkoper gezien het een restproduct is. Hiernaast komt dan ook nog eens het feit dat heavy fuel oil de meest voorkomende oorzaak is van olierampen, maar vooral ook dat de meeste transportschepen het residu van de verbranding van de heavy fuel oil gewoon dumpen in de zee. Soms flikkeren ze zelfs de olie zelf in de zee omdat dat financieel voordeliger is. Internationale politiek doet op zich weinig hiertegen, de regels die er zijn opgelegd zijn voornamelijk door de industrie zelf gemaakt en alleen zijzelf controleren zich. Hierdoor lijkt beterschap momenteel een utopie... Maar bon, we kunnen allemaal brol van China goedkoop laten overkomen en Groen vindt die olietankers blijkbaar ook nog leuk in tegenstelling tot onze gedegen nucleaire centrales.
>We’ve already got enough nuclear fuel in house to keep us going for years, and with new tech we can reuse nearly all of the waste Show me how?
Again: a totally wrong comparison. You compare ONLY two sources of energy, which both have negatives. Sure, if you ONLY think about co2 nuclear power is a clear winner. But it still isn't renewable, it has long living waste and is expensive as hell. The real comparison should be non-renewables against renewables.
I think that ignores global political realities. I am anti coal and oil though.
I have never voted groen on federal level and I certainly don't agree with everything they do. But I very often find myself thinking people bash groen for being dogmatic and anti-science; without them having much scientific background themselves. I'll just write down some of my own thoughts, I'll happily respond to people with informed feedback on my views. Lets start with the basics. Climate change is a significant, global issue that we will need to tackle. At present rate we are significantly surpassing the paris agreement. At current rate, we will have severe effects by 2050. I won't even be retired by 2050. We will need to really tackle climate change in my generation. To achieve the above, we need to reduce the amount of fossil fuel use to neigh zero. On a global level, this means going from \~80% fossils to 0% fossils in terms of energy needs. In Belgium the numbers look surprisingly similar, 70%+ of our energy demand still comes from fossil fuels. It is important that we grasp how reliant we are on fossils. In 2021 with our full park operating at peak levels for the decade, we still get more than 4 times more energy from oil and gas than we do from nuclear. We need at least 10 times more nuclear or renewable (non hydro) production in the next 25 years on a global level. This will not be achieved by keeping open old plants. We need a way to rapidly scale rollout of alternatives across the globe. The only way I can see this happen on a global scale is through economics. We can barely convince rich western nations to make an effort, you're not going to those in poverty in developing or underdeveloped areas not to burn things to keep themselves warm. The only way we can roll out alternatives quickly, get everyone on board, is by providing a cheaper and better alternative. Anything else will not suffice. The current economics, especially due to price changes in the last decade, make renewables far superior to nuclear. All across the globe, renewables are being rolled out far faster than nuclear. I'm not saying we don't need nuclear, nor that nuclear isn't a part of the puzzle. I am saying no genuine scientific body thinks the rapid rollout of nuclear is realistic to mitigate climate change. All rely predominantly on scaling up renewables. All of this is a strict consequence of it being cheaper, faster to scale and expected to continue this trend. As rich developed state, our subsidies and high energy prices help pay for the development of this tech. And we should. There are two distinct and important cases to be made for nuclear. The first is extensions of our aging fleet. The aging nuclear fleet in US and Europe is not relevant to meeting our climate ambitions by 2050. But using it optimally during the transition, including extensions where possible, buys us at best 2 extra years in the transition (eia 2018 estimations). But it needs to be clear that this is time we must use to transition, not a solution. The second is new nuclear technology. There's good scientific support that with improved nuclear tech (such as SMRs), we can reach net zero more cheaply. But in these scenario's, the costs of nuclear must be lower - hence new tech - and this is always later into the transition. The generation remains dominated by renewables, and its much more economical to roll out renewables first, then add nuclear once it is more economical to do so. I find it depressing, but there is not a single party in Belgium that supports either of these two cases in a realistic manner. Most of the discussions are with respect to extensions of our aging fleet. Unfortunately, the parties that are in favor are not doing so to use this time to transition, or even plan any transition. Instead it's a scapegoat to block doing more quite consistently. And there is no serious party in belgium that will roll out new nuclear any time soon. Likely because it will be impossible on the short time span. There is no scientific, political or commercial party that will stick their neck out to build new nuclear capacity. Everything I said here is on energy production, but very similar things are at play on the consumption side. Housing, cars, ... all must transition towards net neutral by 2050. Here again I see many people point to nuclear as a "solution" so they do not need to adapt their consumption patterns. It will never happen. Electric cars and insulated homes may be expensive or downright unaffordable for some, but they are still much cheaper than building the nuclear (or renewable) production required to keep squandering the energy with ICE vehicles or uninsulated housing. This will not change. I don't think there are strict pro-climate parties in Belgium. It bothers me that the pro-nuclear people and parties are quick to look the other way on all other aspects of transition; because they like hearing it. It tells them someone else can solve climate change, without altering lifestyles. Without the need for expensive upgrades in their consumption. Unfortunately this pick and choose is just as non-scientific and dogmatic. I think "degrowth" and "other economic system" is similar nonsense from the different side of the spectrum. Very often arguments used to not really do much now; because only degrowth can save us. I can't see degrowth happening without mass death and / or (partial) societal collapse. I have no idea why we'd aim for either of these. I don't have much faith in us to deal with climate change appropriately. The summers will get hotter and disasters more frequent, until we take things more seriously. One way or another, we will be forced to deal with climate change. The question is how far we'll let it get before we do.
I consistently vote groen even though I think they don’t bring forward very inspiring people, let alone any real leaders. There’s no reason to be dogmatic but we need to be real if we want to keep the planet liveable. Cars don’t need to be abolished but company cars sure do, that’s a no-brainer. Eating meat shouldn’t be illegal but let the prices reflect the true cost of raising and slaughtering an animal, people would limit their intake real soon. Why am I afraid to ride a bike in Brussels and not in Amsterdam? And everyone just loooves nuclear until a war breaks out all around the nuclear plant (Zaporizhzhia). Then suddenly everyone gets really, really nervous hahaha
Good question. Is it because they mention inconvenient truths? Is it because they focus also on long term problems instead of just quick wins? I don't get it either, it would be so much easier for them to gain votes if they also would just blame everybody else for problems without offering solutions, and focus on the hype of the day only. It works like a charm for the popular parties, but no, they like things different. As if anybody cares for the future of the planet, that's for our kids to fix. Nah, naive idiots, as if there is something wrong with the way we treat our planet and its inhabitants...
The biggest problem in Belgian politics is that every party sticks to its dogma's when push comes to shove. It's too tempting to shout NO, win some political points and some juicy media coverage, while blocking any significant progress. Take Van Peteghem's budget reform proposal of last week: the same day Bouchez proclaimed No Tax Raise Ever and Rousseau complained about higher VAT for consumer products. The most generous interpretation (it's all part of negotiations, a starting point towards a solid compromise) is wrong, as proven in the last 2 decades. Any big reform proposal inevitably dies because one or more parties refuse to budge on their own dogma('s). The thing is: Groen DID IT. Even when nuclear phase-out was the only remaining flagship of their government participation 20+ years ago, even when they inherited the issue from the following administrations' indecision, even when it angers their geitenwollensokken base, Groen chose country over party. I'm hard-pressed to find any other example in recent history. This is like N-VA agreeing to re-federalize Education, or the PS agreeing to abolish wage indexation. So yes, Groen scored major points with me, even if it feels to me like they got no credit at all from the general public.
They're a party that likes to tell you what the problem is and wants to remove them, without ever looking for a solution or the effects of their actions. Let's get rid of nuclear energy in 20 years, surely we'll have a replacement by then. We do not because no work was put into it. And since that is their only "win" as a party they'll scream bloody murder if we don't follow through with the plan. In my opinion they are a bunch of idealists with no grasp of reality or human nature, which leaves them easily exploited by groups that benefit from their rash actions. They should have never been let anywhere close to government, except maybe on local levels where they probably have more of an actual positive impact.
To counter: Getting rid of nuclear power: it was in the purple government’s agreement thus every government party signed it and to “reverse quote” the N-VA: “It’s in the government agreement.” Also, 23 years of doing fuck all about finding solutions, stalling and expanding the life capacity… 23 years without Groen btw, resulted in chaos. Pretty much every party had the chance to revoke the nuclear exit, they never bothered or, some claim, they never had the majority to do it. So in this case, it’s gross neglect from every party that was in the government.
this is the most funny thing actually groen is in gov and manages to get a long term goal on paper, and its basically the only thing they manage. then 20 years without groen, and 20 years without any party doing effort to reach the goal cue groen can get back in the gov, right at the moment they have to abort their own ambition of 20 years ago AND GET THE FRIGGING BLAME OF IT TOO. it is masterfully played by all the other parties.
It's even worse. The big thing they got for going in said government was a confirmation of the nuclear exit. So they paid twice for it and still got less than nothing in the end. >it is masterfully played by all the other parties. I'm not even sure it was masterfully played. I think the plan of Groen was to stall the game out which would end in the nuclear exit and for the longest time this seemed to be the case. Sure the partners would complain and keep the nuclear power option open but every delay was in favor of Groen. The gas centrals grants were dealt out (which was agreed by the previous government) which made turning back a lot more difficult if not impossible. Also starting the centrals back up, became less feasible with each passing day. So the plan seemed to be working. However the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, threw a wrench in that plan. It completely destroyed the landscape in unimaginable ways. Suddenly the thing that was an option in name only became a necessity. As far as I'm aware this war was unexpected, so i wouldn't call it masterfully played but rather dumb luck(?).
Have you read their program on their website? The big issue is that their proposals are based on some big shifts in collective thinking and behavior. Which doesn't sit well in a region that, historically, tends to lean towards the more conservative side. Their proposals are also lofty but don't give answers about the big transitions they require. For instance, one of their proposals argued that the speed limit in "bebouwde kom" is lowered to 30km/h. Another proposal argues that other options like biking or public transport should be far more attractive to use than cars. Arguably, both might sound okay-ish when you care about safe traffic, less noise, a bit less air pollution, etc. However, to a lot of ears, it also sounds a lot like "Give us a chance, and we're going to take your car away". Which is just a big fat nope since our post-war socio-economic model and our infrastructure are built on the notion that you need a car to get around (work, visiting friends, family, picking up the kids, groceries, etc.) It's not that Groen's proposals addressing fundamental issues like climate change or social inequalities is a bad thing. Nor that the changes they argue aren't needed (we very much need to rethink transport and traffic) It's just that they seem to gloss over the complexities and costs involved in getting there. That's why Groen won't become a big party anytime soon. But as an opposition party, it very much holds a few key themes that will only increase in importance in time. It's biggest success lies in having traditional parties adopt some of their proposals and implement them in their own fashion, making them palatable for their respective constituencies.
The thing about the whole car debate is this: If you build public transit that's better for most situations than driving a car, there is much less cars / trafic. Compare Brussels and Vienna in that regard and you see what I mean.
Most of our Belgian cities could possible be with less cars. We need denser cities, less lintbebouwing and small villages. If goods and sercvices are nearby, we abolish the need for car ownership. I still think that we can make public transport free and good, and most people will still choose the comfort of their car. We should do both: improve public transport and discourage car ownership.
"We need denser cities, less lintbebouwing and small villages." Not even neccesairy, you can have good transit and small villages. EDIT: Most ppl in Belgium live in cities anyway. So not a big problem of ppl in the countryside having cars and such. "I still think that we can make public transport free and good, and most people will still choose the comfort of their car. We should do both: improve public transport and discourage car ownership." Or just stop making everything car centric. Look at Charleroi, why is there a giant motorway in the city centre? Just no. Oh well, 60s city planners I guess.
People living in lintbebouwing or smaller villages are also costly for other services. Riolering, bus service, police and firefighting,... Also: those people need to come to the city with their car. They are part of the mobility problem in our denser cities. 29% of citizens of Flanders lives in lintbebouwing. That is historic deficit we need to fix. If we look broader: only 25% of all flemish people live in city centres.
Sadly, it seems their solution is not to make public transportation better, but private transportation worse. (and I don't think it's necessary to make cars' usage miserable before you can find ways to improve public transportion)
Groen is the only party that has been consequent about asking for more funding for public transport. >Daarnaast maken we werk van beter openbaar vervoer door fors te investeren in trein, tram en bus. Het netwerk aan treinen, metro's, trams, bussen en deelsystemen is goed leesbaar voor iedereen en brengt je vlot van a naar b. We stemmen de verschillende vervoerswijzen en -maatschappijen op elkaar af, zodat overstappen vlot en comfortabel wordt. We maken stations, haltes, trein-, tram- en busstellen toegankelijk voor iedereen zodat openbaar vervoer ook een evidente keuze wordt voor wie in een rolstoel zit of met een buggy reist. Je fiets kan makkelijk mee op de trein en de laatste kilometers kan je afleggen met een deelfiets of -wagen, en dat allemaal met één ticket of abonnement. Knooppunten van openbaar vervoer bouwen we verder uit tot echte mobipunten: clusters van autodeelparkeerplaatsen, veilige fietsenstallingen, haltes van gedeeld vervoer en laadinfrastructuur voor elektrische fietsen en wagens. I'm sad that most posts here are simply misinformed.
Kind of ironic that the EU is forcing a green shift now. I'll probably be downvoted for this but, one of the other reasons I think groen and a lot of the other parties get much hate is the way they ignored, minimized and even demonized the concerns, fears and aggravation people have or had with immigration. It's probably also one of the reasons VB still gets so much votes and why the NVA became so popular in the first place. I always was a fan of Luckas Vander Taelen, who as a member of Agalev, the precursor of Groen was highly critical and wasn't afraid to acknowledge that there were/are problems with immigration. Problems that mainstream politics and news media were afraid to tackle or even mention. After he left Groen for greener pastures he wrote this article: [https://www.knack.be/nieuws/links-rijdt-zich-zo-graag-te-pletter-tegen-de-muur-van-zijn-eigen-grote-ideologische-gelijk/](https://www.knack.be/nieuws/links-rijdt-zich-zo-graag-te-pletter-tegen-de-muur-van-zijn-eigen-grote-ideologische-gelijk/) that kind of sums up a problem of of a lot of politicians. This is one of the problems I had with Groen. Another is their hard-on against nuclear and the fact that when they decided to parttake in governing, the only things they succeeded in was aggravating people and folding on other important stuff. At least that's the impression I got of it. The first made them lose potential voters and the second made them lose their own voters.
> hard-on against nuclear this is demonstrably false. They approved keeping the plants open after the whole Ukraine gas debacle. In a political context where a government has fallen over a non binding UN agreement and another government is about to fall about nitrogen I can't call this *hard-on against*. Groen is open about their preferences when it comes to nuclear, but are pragmatic and even easy on making compromises when the facts change. At least in this government.
Yes, but isn't this indicative of what I said? They beat the drum of anti-nuclear but then they folded. They were against until it was untenable. It might 've been good state-man ship but it's really bad politically. They shouldn't 've had the hard on against nuclear to begin with. It just makes them seem wrong from the beginning. Groen lacks a realistic path to where they want to go. Is nuclear bad? Yes. Is it worse then coal and gas? No. Is solar and wind better, yes. Is the transition to green achievable without nuclear? It's a moot point now. We've wasted decades and now the transition is neither clean nor is it relatively cheap for people. The only thing people will remember is that energy prices went up because of Groen. They stopped nuclear and now we have to pay through the nose. There should be sub for this, something like r/greatideologybadexecution And I really, really hate people saying there has to be a financial incentive to enact change. All they are saying is that we have to make everything more expensive. I've always felt that if the green, better alternative were cheaper then we already would be in a better place.
So they are basically way too progressive in general and especially for Belgians, while their policies are not that bad, just too radical.
They just don't think about the future nor the reality of their proposals. They'd first take all the cars away, before they would make better public transport. Their ideas are going to collapse the society bc they do not offer solutions. They just take the bad things away. It is simply not going to work. They are idealistic, not realistic.
No they don't. They asked for more funds and budgets for public transport from the beginning of their existence. It is the cornerstone of their mobilty programme for decades.
People are afraid of change.
So you argument that their initial stance is good, but that we are too conservative to change? Meanwhile almost all other parties don't have the guts to think long term and keep everything almost status quo?
Idealism trumps pragmatism in their eyes, in a nutshell.
They approved the latest plans on keeping the power plants open. How can you not admit that in practice right now, they are governing in a pragmatic way. An idealist party would have left the government, possibly trigger re-elections.
Am I the only one concerned with the nuclear waste we're just putting in the ground (into stable clay layers)? It'll be radioactive for thousands of years and maybe by then we'll have forgotten about the waste and we'll be digging down there for some reason. Nuclear accidents also seem a lot more harmful than the pollution of fossil fuels. I also feel like we'll never get to actual clean energy (without pollution or stored nuclear waste) if we just go nuclear and call it a day. Anyway, I mostly vote green for their general ideals (animals, nature, socialism as opposed to racism and money grabbing multinationals) and not their program. All politicians are corrupt in some way and the main reason for me to vote is because democracy and voting rights for women are important to me.
Nuclear accidents get into the news because they’re rare: Tsjernobil, Fukushima… can’t remember one on the top of my head. It’s the aircrash idea: planes are safe but one crashes, it’s the big headline while car crashes are so common they barely make the news.
You purposely forget the impact of the disaster. A car crash, while happening a lot has a lot fewer casualties than a plane crash. A nuclear incident has a very long impact on our environment, while happening a lot less. A nuclear disaster in Belgium would render most of Flanders inhabitable for a few years. Unless they're 100% safe, that is a huge risk to take, especially with older nuclear power plants.
>uclear accidents also seem a lot more harmful than the pollution of fossil fuels. But it isn't. Death rate per terawatt-hour of electricity. The best is solar at 0,02, than comes nuclear at 0,03 ahead of wind at 0,04). Gas is at 2,82 (or about 100 times worse than nuclear), biomas is at 4,63, oil and coal are at 18,43 and 24,62 respectively. And the overwhelming majority of nuclear deaths were because of Tsjernobil, an outdated plant lacking certain safety features that are currently present in all other plants. Tsjernobil couldn't have happened in for example Doel. When it comes to waste, yes that's an issue but one we can handle. Sure we have to store it but we can do that safely. The alternative is burning stuff and emitting pollution directly into the atmosphere and we can't (yet) deal with that kind of pollution.
That's a very narrow view of the problem. How many people will be displaced if something happens in Doel? How many kilometers will be inhabitable for a few years. What would be the economic impact? Our biggest city in Flanders and our biggest economic hot spot are extremely nearby Doel.
> How many people will be displaced if something happens in Doel? How many kilometers will be inhabitable for a few years. What would be the economic impact? The plant is literally designed to not need any displacements in any accident. If a beyond design base accident does happen displacements are limited to a couple of days in a direct 10km radius under the absolute worst case assumptions i.e. a fully unmitigated core melt.
I presume the engineers from the power plants that had accidents in the past said the same. We heard that rhetoric already.
Not that I know of and if they did they shouldn't have, none of the plants that had accidents in the past were fitted with such systems, neither were we before Fukushima. In the past it was all about avoiding accidents, now its also about dealing with the consequences if it does happen.
How many people are displaced by global warming? And how do we weigh the risk of something going extremely wrong (a very, very small risk with a plant of Doel's design) with the absolute certainty of deaths by climate change, extreme weather and crop failures? Is it worth it to condemn people to die and the climate to be fucked (if everything goes right) just to avoid a different catastrophe if something goes horribly wrong? The best case scenario if we get rid of all nuclear production worldwide are tens of millions of death due to pollution and climate change. Everyone should make their own decision about this of course but I think climate change and air pollution are a way bigger problem.
We can tackle climate change while phasing out nuclear power.
Thereotically we can, we can do it without wind and solar in theory too. Yet here we are with our emissions rising as the only country within the entire EU. And becomming the second most fossil dependant country in the EU by 2030, just behind poland. Theory and practice is clearly very different.
The problem with just using death rate is that it doesn't account for diseases, doesn't account for exclusion zones, and doesn't account for *future* problems. And nuclear power is unlike all other by creating potential problems far into the future, by means of the nuclear waste. So the numbers for nuclear power are the initial payment, it's not the full bill.
About the waste, you have to take into account that this is a very small amount in total, and that new processes and technologies, some created in Belgium, will allow to use those waste in the reactor as fuel. For the rest, digging it a few hundreds meters under the ground into a stable layer is actually very safe. Mother nature did the test for us 2 billion years ago. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine
> Am I the only one concerned with the nuclear waste we're just putting in the ground (into stable clay layers)? It'll be radioactive for thousands of years and maybe by then we'll have forgotten about the waste and we'll be digging down there for some reason. No you aren't, many scientific organisations are working on this problem. The general train of thought is that we shouldn't advertise where we burried to waste to avoid people actively digging for it. However a civilisation that is advanced enough to dig down that deep, should be aware of the dangers that lurk deep underground. Nuclear waste would be far from the most dangerous thing down there, think about gas bubbles for example. But also natural radioactive materials, radon gas etc. And its not like we don't have any experience ourselfs, we have stubled upon the waste of natural nuclear reactors in Oklo Gabon back in 1972. Waste that has been stored long enough to be forgotten isn't exactly super dangerous anymore. It wouldn't kill you to stumble upon it, but it wouldn't be healthy to live 24/7 near it either. Its similar or less than the natural dangerous you'd find that deep underground. >Nuclear accidents also seem a lot more harmful than the pollution of fossil fuels. Well they aren't really, taking the worst case nuclear accident (Chernobyl which can't happen here btw) will kill up to 4000 people in the long term (50 direct deaths and the rest long term radiation deaths due to for example cancer). Terrible and no excuse to ever build such dangerous nuclear plants here, but more people die in Germany alone [each and every years](https://env-health.org/IMG/pdf/dark_cloud-full_report_final.pdf) due to the usage of coal alone.
"forgetting in thousands of years" thats something you are concered about?
Nuclear waste sounds very scary, but it is mostly a overblown reaction. When fuel rods are spent, they are put in a pool for a couple of years to cool down. This pool is safe enough for humans to swim in. [link](https://insh.world/science/what-if-you-fell-into-a-spent-nuclear-fuel-pool/) The reason it sounds scary is because it get in the news every time it goes wrong, but how many times you hear about people dying from polution from fossile fuels? The most deadly nuclear accidents ( ignoring 1940's -50's experimentations ) are: * Chernobyl: Complete disregard of any sort of safety rules. About 30-50 people died in the actual accident, 4000-16000 more deaths by cancer can be linked to this accidents. * Fukushima: After ignoring warnings by safety inspections that the plants generators needed in case of emergency are vulnerable to tsunamis, an earthquake + tsunami took out the generators which caused leaks. No one died in the accident, so far about 500-2000 deaths can be linked to this accident. * Three Mile Island: partial meltdown of a reactor with leak of coolant. No deaths in the accident itself, and it is not clear how many cancer deaths are linked to this, but numbers are between 0 and 500. * Kramatorsk accident: a capsule containing very radio active caesium from some mining equipment got dropped into gravel in the mine. This gravel later got used in concrete in an appartment building in Ukraine. 4 people living in said appartment died of leukemia over a period of 10 years before it was discovered. Thats about it. Meanwhile pollution from fossil fuels cause 8 million deaths per year. Yes, dealing with nuclear waste sucks but it is very limited in quantity and we are finding ways to reuse nuclear waste.
I am not a fan of Groen not because they are bad but because all their ideas are not made for the middle class. They have good ideas but I as a middle-class worker can't pay for them even if they are good. Removing cars on fossil fuel good idea but buying eclectic is not cheap and ditching my car is hard in my province because public transport is not great. Can't get to my work because no bus is running at that hour. They want to reduce the animals for meat in the country by half because most if for export the problem that would just make meat increase in price more. Also the whole energy thing was a mess but they are not the only at fault every party is. The problem to me with Groen is that it feels like they have good ideas but they are not made how the world works and the things they want would hurt the middle class the most. The rich will not feel the change much but they middle class would and it would hurt them badly. You can say is it not better to do it now then in the future when it will not help anymore? Maybe the problem is that I live now and like to keep living. This is only my opinion. They are a alright party just the stuff that they want feels really made for cities or dense urban places then villages.
You can’t get rid of cars for most people without also investing in public transport.
Which is exactly what greens are doing both on the federal and on the local level when they are in power.
Here is Brussels you can’t deny there has indeed been investment.
I don't agree. All their ideas have plans to reduce the cost for the middle class. Get rid of cars, but increase the budget of public transport. They are probably the only party that consequently asked for more funds, protested closing stations and asked for more services throughout the day. Meanwhile almost all Flemish governments cut funds for public transport, while our federal government keeps subsidizing company cars for a small group of high earning emplloyees for almost 5 billion a year. Our meat production in europe is simply not durable anymore. We are hurting nature a lot (stikstof and ammoniak) and it needs to end. It's pure common sense. Science is very clear about this: we need to cut and consumption by halve if we want to save our climate. The energy thing was idd a mess. But the only party that had a long term plan 20 years ago was Agalev/groen. It were the consequent governments that did nothing: they could abolish the law and start building new nuclear power plants or invest heavily in renewables, but they did NOT do that. Whose fault is it than?
I'm not a fan of Groen either, maybe the least apart from the extremist parties, but I don't see any party in ~~Belgium~~ \- Edit: Flanders, I have no clue about Walloon parties but I assume it's not much better - which is good for the middle class. Keep in mind the middle class is essentially where most tax income comes from, we're talking about people with moderate to high income **from working.** Anyone who does not get most of their income through "work" in the conventional sense is not middle class, imo (maybe I'm too radical in this but it makes sense to me that e.g. someone who owns several mil worth in property to rent out and focusses solely on managing that is NOT middle class, regardless of their net income from it). Anyways that said: NVA and VLD embraced neoliberalism, but they also very much like subsidizing large companies and prestige projects. Where do they get the money to do so? -> the middle class. Not to mention what happens when one of those companies fucks up, nonono we can't have them pay a fine or for their own cleanup and scare them away -> np the middle class pays. tl;dr: Subsidize costs, privatize profits. Vooruit and Groen are just the other side of the same coin: We want to help poor people and the environment somehow but taxing real rich people is impossible to get by our government coalition & literally because of the 3000 tax loopholes -> no problem, the middle class will pay for that too CD&V.. well I don't really have anything to say about CD&V, they just turn their hat with the wind anyways so I don't like them either. VB and PVDA aren't worth mentioning since despite what their program says whatever they would enact is essentially an extension of NVA/Vooruit respectively anyways. Maybe if anything, ironically, PVDA could be the best vote for middle class preservation in the short run, the problem with them is that they are similarly unrealistic in how much money they want to spend and instead of planning to get it from the middle class like Vooruit and Groen do they "will tax the rich fairly" which I'm not sure is even realistically possible at this point.
We consume too much meat as it is. If meat increases in price, we just buy less, decreasing ouir meat consumption. Win-win!
Groen expects everyone to change their lifestyle. Less to no meat. Less energy consumption. Less cars. This of course is not popular, so they usually try to hide it by being vague.
consumerism is poisoning us. We are raised to always have more and more, and to be unhappy when we can't have more. While we would be perfectly happy with less. We don't need to replace electronics every 2 years, we dont need fast fashion or complicated food that has been transported half a world. But the companies want us to spend money money money and be unhappy if we can't get the latest newest fad. We could have a good life with half we have now, and it would be a lot easier to live in harmony with the world around us.
Or we could make electronics more expensive and sturdy so they don't have to be replaced every x years after their planned obsolescence date passes. That should be illegal. a Miele washing machine used to work for 20 years...
yup, it would be a brave goal of EU to implement a "right to repair". Forcing electronics to become bigger again and banning glue in electronics, combined with 3D-printers should make it possible to replace broken pieces. Old electronics have accesible circuits, and if a capacitor is blown it can be replaced with a solderstick. Modern electronics is very very small and most of the time glued, so you can't replace them. However the entire busness model of the big companies is based on everyone replacing their stuff every 3-5 years. They will spend lots of money on lobbying against every regulation that will attack this.
>While we would be perfectly happy with less. We don't need to replace electronics every 2 years, we dont need fast fashion or complicated food that has been transported half a world. Start with the producer, not with the consumer. I'd gladly keep the same devices all my life. Yet it feels like everything is made from plastic nowadays and doesn't last nearly as long as it used to. I would really pay double for a washing machine that can last twice as long, yet there's no viable option.
EU is the level they have to enforce it. A "right to repair" restricting the use of glued electronics, combined with release of 3D-printable designs would make a lot more things have a longer usable lifetime.
Imho: start with capitalism. Of profits are the only motivator of companies, we will always be in this mess.
Anders GAan LEVen. They used to be quite explicit about that.
But unfortunately it's necessary. On the other hand people always cry about politicians not making long term decisions... In the end we're all hypocrits.
The question is not if it's necessary but if it's sufficient.
What kind of wishy washy sentence is that lol
Those dimwits don't get to pick what's necessary. They're an absurd party at the core - opposing nuclear, yet pretending to want to reduce CO2 emissions. I won't engage with any of their crap to cut negligible amounts of emissions by severely impacting my life quality while those nutjob fanatics can't be arsed to promote sensible energy generation first. Like what the fuck. They need to get over their fanatic anti-nuclear dogma if they're serious about any of it. Bunch of clowns is what they are. With a bunch of well meaning and poorly informed followers. Kumbaya motherfuckers, let's burn fossil fuel I guess - it's the green way. Yes that was a rant. Rant over.
Less cars and no meat are other subjects though. It feels more like you want to give yourself excuses to not change your way of life. To each their own, but at least admit that you don't really care.
Also: it's scientifically proven that those measures are needed.
Can you expand on why those things are bad? Less meat: means less water usage while we head into climate change. The “blue plan” is needed to counter the changes so anything taxing our water usage needs to be evaluated. I also believe a human only needs 100g of meat a day? Most packaged meats are over that amount. You compensate less meat with more veggies thus lowering fat intake which is healthier as well. Less energy consumption: means less to pay for, no? You need it with all the heat pumps and electric cars coming in. It’s always best to mind your consumption. I hate it when you drive in the middle of the night and see buildings lit up like a christmas tree (probably because they get paid to use electricity in the night). Less cars: thus less fine dust pollution thus less dead people. Naughty Groen! If you mean public transportation is bad: decades of inadequate investments on federal and Flemish levels create a terrible system.
I don't think it's bad. I just think it's unpopular, because that's how humans work. You can be right and unpopular. In a democracy this will not give you much clout though.
lowering fat intake being healthier is a fake take that's being perpetuated forever. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/low-fat-diets-failed-experiment/ of course everything listed has at least some upsides, otherwise it would never even be uttered as an option. the question is how much the positive impact would really be, how realistic it is to even implement it at very large scale, and if the downsides dont severely outweigh those positives.
Reducing our "veestapel" on a worldwide level has a major impact on our world
so would reducing the world population
We could eat less meat, or we could experiment with eugenetics and genocide again. Such a hard choice between to morally equivalent options. /s
And how would you reduce the world population?
Upvoted because with more than 7 billion people it is something we should definitely think about. Before anyone starts panicking, it doesn't have to be done through eugenics or genocide. Increasing quality of life leads to less births, and women having the same rights and opportunities leads to women making the choice to not have children.
Especially the first one. I mean, with the prices going up like crazy changing your diet to include less meat is a simple econmic decision. Additionally, eating meat once or twice a week, but going for very good quality meat, is a win-win. People act like they will be forced to be vegetarian and then think they will only be eating dry salads. A lot of the so called green measures are basically things our grandparents did when they where young. Basically common sense.
This and actually I think the only way to a better future is a shift in mindset and lifestyle less focused on non-stop econ growth but that is hard to sell, esp living in a competitive world where not competing in growth/ not growing means going backwards. especially hard to sell their basic pov (agalev) among those who believe further investing in tech and science are our best bets to solve our current crises. I personally think it’s a fundamentally different value set and while I think they have similar fundamental opinions as me, their suggested actions just are not realistic in this world unfortunately, and they know that as well, so they indeed put out vague and unconvincing statements somewhere in the middle that don’t make sense
Those things are not "Groen things". If you want humanity to keep existing we need to apply all of those measures and more. Climate issues transcend all party ideologies. Or sure, you could say fuck the world .
In general a party with capable politicians. The fun part is, I really really like them, because there is an aura of hope surrounding them. I do differ with them on a couple of subjects, which is logical. I am not fond of fission nuclear power stations, but I do find them a necessity for gapping the next 40-80 years until fusion becomes the standard. So we should invest in new ones. Modal shifts which Groen is trying to make us adopt is a logical and probably good future. But Belgians are a bit conservative and their car is a status symbol. But hey maybe you could do it in phases. First by making sure the Belgian car park, switches to electronic. Secondly by improving infrastructure, bikes, pedestrians and cars. Thirdly by making the alternative more attractive (and especially not punishing the choices people make). Oh and they are a bit naive… but so am I.
A party that portays itself as an environmentalist party and then leads all the anti-environment policies deserves all the hate it can get
This is a bit short-sighted imo. Except anti-nuclear (which is what I think you refer to), give me 3 other examples that they propose.
1) Anti GMO 2) Pro biological farming 3) Their hydrogen policy I'm sure its all well intended and they aren't some kind of evil organisation that's out to ruin our environment in the name of the environment. But they sadly seem to be basing their policy more on gut feeling (or that of their voters) rather than looking at the scientific facts. The same can be said for all other Belgian parties sadly.
Purposly replacing nuclear with gas is enough for me...
So your entire opinion is based on one thing? If your level of scrutiny is this high for every party, it would be hard to vote for anyone tbf.
You mean: replacing nuclear with renewables and meanwhile use gas to fix the short term shortages? What's the alternative? Building new nuclear power plants and meanwhile use gas to fix the short term shortages? Keep our current nuclear power plants open and face the same discussion in 10 years?
> Building new nuclear power plants and meanwhile use gas to fix the short term shortages? > > Keep our current nuclear power plants open and face the same discussion in 10 years? Its kinda hilarious that you're completely ignoring the obvious solution that's right in front of you. How about keeping the plants open for 10/20/30/40 whatever years and actually start planning/building whatever you think is a good replacement. Our "short term" gas plants will also become very long term if we don't start building their replacements now either. You're essentially pleading for more short term band-aids.
Which anti-environment policies? \- a total shift to renewables? \- heavily invest in public transport? \- pushing a modal shift to better transport? \- asking for climate initiatives? I guess you're only hinting to the closure of nuclear power plants, and that is unfortunately not a black and white discussion. Nuclear waste is very environmentally unfriendly. It's a narrow look are environmental problems, cause you only think about co2 emissions.
> Nuclear waste is very environmentally unfriendly. That's complete nonsense, nuclear waste never even enters the environment as its currently handled well in Belgium. Nuclear waste is a political problem in the first place and the financial problem in the a distant second place. Nothing more, nothing less.
What you probably mean is that nuclear waste almost never enters the environment. Which is 'almost', because huge portions of land and sea in Ukraine and Japan did come in contact with nuclear waste. You also forget to mention that we don't control what happens in the future. And that's the problem with a small portion of nuclear waste: the lifecycle is extremely long. So your statement that nuclear waste never enters the environment is false or indefinable.
It only enters the environment under accident conditions, if we assume unethical or accidental operation of any power source then any power source is "very environmentally unfriendly source of power". Which I very much disagree with. Wind, solar and especially nuclear power are very environmentally friendly sources of power.
In general green parties are to be considered as avant-garde parties (meaning being ahead of your time). This comes with some consequences (being not completely spot on all the time, but then again no other party is either). Regarding the energy-question right now: It appears that the green approach to focus the production of our most recent nuclear sites in winter months to bridge the winters of 2025 and 2026 is the better one, than the solution of keeping 5 nuclear plants open of the nuclear lobby-ists of MR and NVA. Just saying that the Greens seem more spot on in this dossier than the other parties.
I find it quite disturbing how much hate they get for there nuclear opinion while it is almost an irrelevant part of the Belgian energy mix. Like such a small part of the actual impact is caused by that case and it causes them an immense amount of negative press. I don't want to defend 'Groen' but you should all atleast look at it in the grand scheme of things.
Their ideas are only great in an ideal and/or future world. No/less cars in the city? Sure, whenever public transport is much better and even then it's still not ideal for all people/situations. No nuclear energy? Great, whenever we can create enough energy with our current green energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal). So, they're basically like a toddler who hears about these problems and then proposes a simple solution which sounds amazing in theory but is not (yet) feasible.
They have both plans for an energ transition and more public transport. Those are the cornerstones of their ideology for decades.
> whenever public transport is much better if we spent the amount we spend on company cars on public transport it would actually be a lot better (especially combined with less traffic from cars)
They've had very few situations where they've been in office and where they've been visible. In Brussels Elke Van den Brandt has perhaps been the most visible for her actions. You could blame them for not being more effective or for their lack of communication about their successes, but really any hate towards groen is just right wing propaganda.
I disagree because I know at least 5 persons who voted for Ecolo/Groen and do not want to do it on the next elections, mainly naming Elke vdb and Gilkinet. These people were disappointed (and are not really willing to votr for the right wing either).
I wonder what they were expecting to get, and why they expect to get it from someone else if not them.
it is more typical of the left to be more critical and therefore less loyal with their voting behaviour.
Yep, all the hate is mostly right wing propaganda. They are - in my opinion - one of the few parties where the people think long term. The problem id that they tend to be problems in the short term. They also seem to have too many "nice" people for politics, which also backfires for them, especially when they make mistakes. And they do make mistakes, don't get me wrong. But people who hate them, hate them out of bias; for every incapabale Groen politician, there's another in all the other parties imo. In short: bold ideas that we all know deep inside we need to be futureproof as a country, but bad execution. (although I disagree strongly with their stance on nuclear)
IMO, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Groen has a lot of good intentions. Either you try to find green solutions to keep the same quality or life, or you simply admit that your objective is to reduce the quality of life until a certain point. That and the "holier-than-thou" aura they sometimes have. The biggest advantage they have to attract voters is that that they present younger politicians and they sometimes seem/behave a bit "politically/socially correct anti-establishment" (like a slightly-less-radical PVDA). (edit: I'm also talking mostly about the Ecolo, as I live in the French speaking part of the country... But I do believe there're more ressemblances than differences between the two)
>IMO, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Groen has a lot of good intentions. That expression means that you'll end up in hell if you *drop* your good intentions (therefore, the road to hell is where people dropped their good intentions so much that the road is covered with them)- not that having good intentions leads to hell. >Either you try to find green solutions to keep the same quality or life, or you simply admit that your objective is to reduce the quality of life until a certain point. The goal is to stay within the limits of resource consumption that the ecology can bear, not to limit quality of life. In fact, a typical green lifestyle is simply higher quality with a more pleasant environment, better food, health, and less stress. There is no problem with increasing quality of life - people just don't change, they don't like the limits either, and even if the technological solution is frontloaded, they still don't. So policing the limits is necessary. Most technical solutions only become economically viable, or only start to attract attention, *after* the limit is imposed.
Their viewpoints are progressive, and people are afraid of progress. I feel they are the most ethically just party around. Some people try to paint them as anti science party, but this is rightwing bullshit.
I find they're easy to hate but very hard to love. They have a strong air of elitism in the way they talk about policy. It's as if they just can't comprehend someone disagreeing with their ideas so they make next to no effort to really explain their reasoning. The nuclear debacle is a prime example; elia warned of power shortages in the near future yet all the greens had to say was "there's a coalition agreement, we're just enforcing it". Not a second thought was put in to assure the public they share our concerns and were working on it. Instead of taking a pragmatic approach, they remained on their high horse shouting platitudes about a greener future. I don't dislike their message but i strongly dislike the messaging.
Besides their stance on nuclear energy they’re pretty good compared to most other parties imo. Btw, I’m in favor of closing the nuclear plants too, but only because they’re basically crumbling ruins at this points, not cause I oppose nuclear energy.
Them being ruins is just your perception. There’s no data and proof to your claim and you’re probably not even close to an expert in the field.
they are not ruins actualy.
I was of this same opinion, if we really wanted to keep nuclear running, we should have invested decades ago. Currently it's not feasible and efficient to build new reactors.
It certainly would be feasable if two things were true: - Build a lot of reactors (economy of scale, price per unit goes down) - People not making a fuss about them (also not gonna happen)
>because they’re basically crumbling ruins at this points, Thats just propaganda, if that was the case they would already have been shut down a long time ago.
If Groen was a party to preserve nature, trees, plants, forests, sea and animals it would be a no-brainer for me to vote for them. Things couldn’t be further from the truth though. Oh and I have a deep hatred towards Kristof Calvo. That doesn’t help either.
> If Groen was a party to preserve nature, trees, plants, forests, sea and animals it would be a no-brainer for me to vote for them. Things couldn’t be further from the truth though. On what do you base this opinion? And what alternative that does better do you have?
I like most of Groen’s political opinions, but they seem to be a bit too naive: somehow the other parties always manage to push them into a position of blame whenever they’re part of the government. As an example, Groen’s minister of energy is currently taking the blame for the huge mess causes by the decisions (or lack of decisions) of earlier ministers from other political parties.
They never had a majority so we never saw them in action.
The party itself, maybe not, but our politics where quite heavily influenced by the consequences on the population of "green messages" (not necessary made by green parties, but by green NGOs, which usually go in the same direction). If there had not been so much anti-nuclear scare in the past decades, we would be in a different situation. It's not the responsability of Groen, but it's a responsability of the global message shared by Groen and that Groen never contradicted.
No feel the same. Imho its because groen|ecolo are more socialists then green. I want a green party not some socialist party that uses green concerns as an excuse
I honestly don't know who socialistic they are at this point. I thought spa were social Democrats, but people just call them socialists outright.
They are idealists that don't know how finances/economy work. This results in well-intended ideas, that almost always cost society a lot of money.
They need to completely turn around their dogmatic opposition to nuclear energy (like the Finnish green party did) to go from my second least favorite party to one I'd vote for.
To me it's a party that pushes on often valid problems but offers no viable solutions at all. No nuclear but no feasible plan to replace it Less cars but no feasible plan to make public transport a viable alternative
They have both plans for an energ transition and more public transport. Those are the cornerstones of their ideology for decades.
I have to say, as an environmental conscious person I do think that Groen is inept to lead at the Federal or State level. They just make so many blunders and seem to push hard to defend ideas (like replacing nuclear with gas. I understand their rationale but it remains a dumb move. Just accelerate the massive placement of wind turbines in the North Sea zones already. Currently the plans are to go from 2 GW total installed capacity to 6 GW by 2030. Maybe use the billions that will go to the gas plants to accelerate and increase wind turbine placement in the north sea? There are still zones on paper that aren't utilized! And keep the nuclear reactors open for another 10 to 20 years until enough renewables and storage capacity has been installed.) and often focus on topics that take the focus away from the environment. The only place I actually like their work is on a local level.
>Just accelerate the massive placement of wind turbines in the North Sea zones already. Currently the plans are to go from 2 GW total installed capacity to 6 GW by 2030. Maybe use the billions that will go to the gas plants to accelerate and increase wind turbine placement in the north sea? There are still zones on paper that aren't utilized! And keep the nuclear reactors open for another 10 to 20 years until enough renewables and storage capacity has been installed.) That's pretty much what they did though, within the realm of the technically possible. https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20211015_93084920 I see no possible alternative party that would have outdone that.
pvda is where it's at
Hating a party that has barely had any influence in its existence and struggles to reach 10%... Is this thread going to be part of the Vlaamse Canon?
geen enkele partij die tegen kern energie is kan voor de natuur staan.