The Tihange nuclear power plant is located approximately 40 km south of the Dutch border. In the event of a disaster, a significant part of Limburg is at great risk. And major cities such as Maastricht, Heerlen, Liège, Aachen, Brussels and Luxembourg are directly threatened in that case. Citizens in those regions are increasingly realizing that the power plant has had its day. People did not invest in alternatives in time, resulting in a nuclear unsafe living environment.

The Tihange nuclear power plant

Tihange is located about 25 km. south of Liège, directly on the Meuse. The Tihange nuclear complex contains three nuclear reactors, which were put into production in 1975, 1982 and 1985 respectively. About 25% of Belgian electricity is produced here. The three reactors have a combined capacity of approximately 3 GW.In addition to the three nuclear reactors in Tihange in Wallonia, there are another four reactors in the Flemish Doel, directly near Antwerp. On the way to Walcheren, the cooling towers at the port of Antwerp are clearly recognizable.More than 50% of Belgian electricity is generated at both locations, Tihange and Doel. All Belgian nuclear power stations are operated by energy supplier Electrabel, a subsidiary of the French company GDF Suez. In addition to nuclear capacity, Electrabel also owns several conventional power stations. Electrabel therefore has an almost monopoly position in Belgium.

Belgian exit from nuclear energy

In 2003, the Belgian government decided to limit the useful life/lifespan of nuclear power stations to 40 years. The law also excludes the construction of new nuclear power stations.

Closure of Tihange 1 nuclear power plant planned for 2015

According to this schedule, Tihange 1 was to be decommissioned in 2015, but the law provided for an escape clause. If the energy supply is not guaranteed, the maximum term can be extended. And it was precisely this extension that was decided for Tihange 1 in June 2012.

Were energy supply risks consciously created?

However, one may wonder whether the continuity of energy supply is really at risk in the future. And if so, was this risk consciously or negligently created? In connection with that question, three aspects can be mentioned:

• studies have shown that the closure of Doel 1 and 2 and Tihange 1 will not endanger the energy supply in Belgium. The capacity of approximately 2 GW mentioned in this context is excess capacity, which will not be necessary even in extreme situations;
• Since 2003, Belgium has failed to present a viable strategy for a sustainable energy policy. This clearly shows that the current system is favored and actual change is consciously prevented;
• the operator of the Belgian nuclear power plants exerted immense pressure on the Belgian government in the first half of 2012. This pressure manifested itself in the following decisions: the number of jobs was reduced and existing conventional hydroelectric power stations were switched off to artificially generate a shortage of electricity. In addition, Electrabel announced that it would stop all investments in Belgium.

The above points allow only one conceivable conclusion: the Belgian government is manipulating its own exit legislation! And Japan’s Fukushima has made it abundantly clear how disastrous a radioactive contamination can be, hasn’t it?

Risks due to leakage in the cooling system

Shortly after the extension of the operating time of Tihange 1, it became known that approximately two liters of radioactively contaminated water was leaking from one of the cooling basins every day. The leak has existed since 2006 and has been kept secret from the public until now. All attempts by operator Electrabel to close the leak have come to nothing.One may wonder whether an operator, who has not been able to locate a leak in a period of 6 years, actually has the expertise to responsibly manage such a risky technology as a nuclear power plant.

Cracks in the reactor vessel

In early August 2012, more than 8,000 cracks were discovered in the Doel 3 reactor vessel. The cracks were so serious that further operation of the reactor is probably no longer possible. Repair or even replacement of the reactor vessel is technically difficult to achieve.Research has shown that the same reactor vessel was installed at 21 other nuclear power stations. Among other things, there is a similar reactor vessel in the nuclear reactor of Tihange 2. For this reason, the reactor of Tihange 2 was decommissioned on August 16, 2012.Moreover, on October 17, 2012 it was announced that the shut down nuclear reactor will be restarted later than expected. The investigation by the Belgian regulator into the safety of the installation was not completed before January 2013.

Concrete rotting reactor building

The reactor building (containment) of Tihange 2 shows strong traces of concrete corrosion (concrete rot). This affects not only the outer shell, but also the 1.2 m thick inner layer. It is affected to a depth of 30 cm.Concrete rot is caused by improperly processed concrete. Water penetrates the concrete through the cracks, affecting the steel contained therein and thus slowly dissolving the structure of the reinforced concrete. In the event of a disaster, the reactor building is the last protection to prevent radioactivity from ending up in the environment.Due to the damage present, the protective covering can no longer fulfill its function. Even in the event of an earthquake, safety is greatly reduced by these shortcomings.

Doubts about the safety of Tihange 2 remain

In February 2013 it was announced that the planned restart of Tihange 2 had been delayed. The Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) was not yet sufficiently convinced that the plant was sufficiently safe at that time to put it back into use. They want to be absolutely sure that the 2,000 cracks that were discovered in the reactor vessel in the summer of 2012 will not widen when the pressure is increased again.Additional tests are therefore desirable to test the material for toughness and tensile load. Operator Electrabel must also demonstrate that no critical defects will occur in areas that cannot be inspected.All in all, Electrabel received 18 additional homework assignments from the FANC in February, some of which must also be completed after start-up.

Repair of Tihange 2 reactor vessel unthinkable

In February 2013, the FANC also announced that repairs to the reactor vessel in question in Tihange are virtually unthinkable. Repair will cause other weak spots in the wall of the reactor.And a complete replacement of the reactor vessel is also not a realistic option due to the radiation hazard. Such an operation has never before been used at a nuclear power plant.

read more

• How useful are iodine tablets in a nuclear disaster?