Fully agree. This is a bad decision that makes the Netherlands more dependent on imported gas and reducing its energy security. Just yesterday, Gasunie, the Dutch state-owned company responsible for managing and transporting gas infrastructure, confirmed that the target for filling gas storage for this winter will not be reached. To me it seems like just another instance of emotionally driven populism and short-term electoral politics from almost all parties in Parliament. Some more strategic, long-term thinking would be nice at a time of increasing energy and 'geopolitical' uncertainty. There are quite a few things going on in the world 'outside', but Dutch politicians often seem to think we're a remote island or something.
1. The Groningen gas field is not being filled with cement.
2. The individual gas wells are being permanently sealed, partly using cement.
3. There is still natural gas in the Groningen gas field.
4. Because of changes in underground pressure and stresses, earthquakes can still occur even after gas extraction has stopped.
A simple comparison: imagine a large sponge containing gas from which gas has been extracted for many years. You turn off the tap and seal the pipe with cement, but you do not fill the sponge itself with cement.
The suicide of Europe continues. The Leftist and Greens will never admit to being wrong. That requires character and smarts. They continue to double down on stupid decisions regarding immigration and energy in spite of the empirical evidence that their policies have been wrong.
All is not lost. Cement yields quite readily to the drill bit. These cement plugs can be removed, the wells can all be “re drilled”, won’t be the first time it’s been done.
this article appears to oversimplify the issue. you suggest that a financial compensation can fix the issue. in practice, further gas production makes groningen more or less unliveable. you promote irresponsibility under the cover so called rationality. just like all the advocates for nuclear energy do. that is the commonality I see here.
What are the problems with nuclear energy? We already have commercially used technologies to deal with waste, reprocessing and breeder reactors, Russians have been doing both for decades.
No one has brought a breeder reactor to full commercial operation, comparable with thermal neutron reactors. With much effort and considerable expense, availability of around 65% was achieved in a single reactor. You can’t power a country on such risible performance.
In addition fuel manufacturing will not have advanced beyond the pilot plant / experimental stage for a single reactor.
Russia has been reprocessing fuel for decades now on a commercial scale.
The fact that West is pathetic at nuclear industry doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm sure Rosatom would build breeder reactors in Netherlands if they paid.
My bad, for forgetting that there are currently two operating FBRs rather than one.
And the availability factor (EAF) for the BN-800 is the 65% I recalled (IAEA PRIS). The corresponding number for the BN-800 is 75%.
Neither of these are sufficient to form the basis of commercial viability, an alien concept in Russia anyway where only a single nuclear operator is tolerated.
I wouldn’t go overboard praising Russian nuclear in general either, as it remains mired in problems that existed back in the 1980s.
These problems include excessive secrecy and an inability to admit and address safety failings, the major accident at the Mayak reprocessing facility in 2017 being a case in point, or the continued practice of disposing of high-level waste in liquid form, despite a 2013 IAEA peer review highlighting shortcomings (polite words for saying that this didn’t meet IAEA safety standards and that no other country was batshit crazy enough to propose such a method).
Though in the case of HLW I guess pumping the stuff underground is a marked improvement on dumping it in a lake as happened during the Cold War.
For $150k worth of gas per resident, you could build a whole ahh new town with new modern infrastructure, move them all there, and still keep the extraction profitable. Not even talking about how this is a geopolitical security issue.
A solution to what? Energy independence? Yeah, if it's necessary. People would be compensated for their trouble and they would keep their neighbours anyway.
deportations of luddites would be an idea worth investigating for sure. i heard the andaman islands are beautiful this time of year, and there are no powerplants to endanger you lot!
The Andamans are always beautiful, at all times of the year. I think you're associating them with the British colonials usage of one island as a prison.
Or maybe you would like the inhabitants provide the John Chau package tour to Herr Strasser?
There are countries that have low energy availability. Why don’t you move there if it’s so irresponsible instead of wrecking the few that have relative plenty.
I get your point all right, after all we’re constantly inundated with its exponents. It’s just so bovine that you lot should be put in a corner with a snack of crayons instead of getting to hold Europe hostage with your delusions.
It’s practically the most depressing part of being European, constantly being reminded that the vote of someone who thinks of nuclear when they need an example for an irresponsibly dangerous industry counts the same as your own.
As a German, I regret to inform you that your remarks regarding German nuclear power plants suggest, at the very least, poor research. The three power plants had not undergone maintenance for years because their decommissioning had long been planned. A complete inspection and hardware update lasting several months, at a minimum, would have been required. Furthermore, no new personnel had been trained for years due to the planned shutdown. In addition, the fuel rods were depleted, and the lead time for new ones was at least a year.
How can the Dutch act so irresponsible and none in the country knows this? They are stealing the future optionality of their kids, in a world of instability and lack of energy! Selling the idea for more votes? What exactly?
What would prevent a future government from undoing the ban, and just drilling new wells into the field? That is, why is the decision actually irreversible?
I don't know if this is a story about permanent closure rather than just stupid green policies ("we will stop producing gas, but not using it"). I don't think it is impossible to restart drilling under Groningen or to turn on German nuclear plants.
Often the refusal to reverse decisions you dislike is also a feature of European political systems, especially countries with coalition governments, where governments agree to "respect" the decisions of previous governments even if they opposed them vigorously at the time to get some continuity. Unfortunately this also leads to flywheels of bureaucracy where left-wing governments introduce new bureaucracy and benefits and instead of dismantling them, right-wing governments try to introduce "market mechanisms" and incentives to these (such as putting publicly-owned utilities in corporate legal structures)
Fully agree. This is a bad decision that makes the Netherlands more dependent on imported gas and reducing its energy security. Just yesterday, Gasunie, the Dutch state-owned company responsible for managing and transporting gas infrastructure, confirmed that the target for filling gas storage for this winter will not be reached. To me it seems like just another instance of emotionally driven populism and short-term electoral politics from almost all parties in Parliament. Some more strategic, long-term thinking would be nice at a time of increasing energy and 'geopolitical' uncertainty. There are quite a few things going on in the world 'outside', but Dutch politicians often seem to think we're a remote island or something.
Goed gezegd.
Immensely hilarious in context of news today that the gas reserves won't be filled in time for winter, and people won't be able to afford heating.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2026/08/netherlands-to-miss-gas-target-what-it-means-for-households/
The key points are:
1. The Groningen gas field is not being filled with cement.
2. The individual gas wells are being permanently sealed, partly using cement.
3. There is still natural gas in the Groningen gas field.
4. Because of changes in underground pressure and stresses, earthquakes can still occur even after gas extraction has stopped.
A simple comparison: imagine a large sponge containing gas from which gas has been extracted for many years. You turn off the tap and seal the pipe with cement, but you do not fill the sponge itself with cement.
The suicide of Europe continues. The Leftist and Greens will never admit to being wrong. That requires character and smarts. They continue to double down on stupid decisions regarding immigration and energy in spite of the empirical evidence that their policies have been wrong.
The sheer stupidity is mind boggling.
I wonder if these green lunatics know that concrete is not exactly carbon neutral?
With apologies to Napoleon, never interrupt your enemies when they're making mistakes but point and laugh.
All is not lost. Cement yields quite readily to the drill bit. These cement plugs can be removed, the wells can all be “re drilled”, won’t be the first time it’s been done.
German NPPs can still be refurbished, check out the report here: https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/
I believe that you are working on this, aren’t you?
this article appears to oversimplify the issue. you suggest that a financial compensation can fix the issue. in practice, further gas production makes groningen more or less unliveable. you promote irresponsibility under the cover so called rationality. just like all the advocates for nuclear energy do. that is the commonality I see here.
What are the problems with nuclear energy? We already have commercially used technologies to deal with waste, reprocessing and breeder reactors, Russians have been doing both for decades.
No one has brought a breeder reactor to full commercial operation, comparable with thermal neutron reactors. With much effort and considerable expense, availability of around 65% was achieved in a single reactor. You can’t power a country on such risible performance.
In addition fuel manufacturing will not have advanced beyond the pilot plant / experimental stage for a single reactor.
BN-350, BN-600, BN-800 were/are all in operation. Availability is certainly above 65%.
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/details/beloyarsk-3
Russia has been reprocessing fuel for decades now on a commercial scale.
The fact that West is pathetic at nuclear industry doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm sure Rosatom would build breeder reactors in Netherlands if they paid.
My bad, for forgetting that there are currently two operating FBRs rather than one.
And the availability factor (EAF) for the BN-800 is the 65% I recalled (IAEA PRIS). The corresponding number for the BN-800 is 75%.
Neither of these are sufficient to form the basis of commercial viability, an alien concept in Russia anyway where only a single nuclear operator is tolerated.
I wouldn’t go overboard praising Russian nuclear in general either, as it remains mired in problems that existed back in the 1980s.
These problems include excessive secrecy and an inability to admit and address safety failings, the major accident at the Mayak reprocessing facility in 2017 being a case in point, or the continued practice of disposing of high-level waste in liquid form, despite a 2013 IAEA peer review highlighting shortcomings (polite words for saying that this didn’t meet IAEA safety standards and that no other country was batshit crazy enough to propose such a method).
Though in the case of HLW I guess pumping the stuff underground is a marked improvement on dumping it in a lake as happened during the Cold War.
For $150k worth of gas per resident, you could build a whole ahh new town with new modern infrastructure, move them all there, and still keep the extraction profitable. Not even talking about how this is a geopolitical security issue.
This (https://www.dutchbrief.com/p/only-45-full-dutch-gas-stores-wont) is news from literally today.
deportation as a solution?
Every hydroelectric plant has resulted in "deportations."
A solution to what? Energy independence? Yeah, if it's necessary. People would be compensated for their trouble and they would keep their neighbours anyway.
deportations of luddites would be an idea worth investigating for sure. i heard the andaman islands are beautiful this time of year, and there are no powerplants to endanger you lot!
The Andamans are always beautiful, at all times of the year. I think you're associating them with the British colonials usage of one island as a prison.
Or maybe you would like the inhabitants provide the John Chau package tour to Herr Strasser?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-story-john-allen-chaus-ill-fated-trip-remote-island-180970971/
There are countries that have low energy availability. Why don’t you move there if it’s so irresponsible instead of wrecking the few that have relative plenty.
apparently you did not get my point
I get your point all right, after all we’re constantly inundated with its exponents. It’s just so bovine that you lot should be put in a corner with a snack of crayons instead of getting to hold Europe hostage with your delusions.
It’s practically the most depressing part of being European, constantly being reminded that the vote of someone who thinks of nuclear when they need an example for an irresponsibly dangerous industry counts the same as your own.
So the anti-capitalist leftists “salted the earth” to make sure that future democratically elected governments couldn’t produce “dirty” fossil fuels?
I’m shocked. Shocked!
Next you will tell me there is gambling in Casablanca…
https://x.com/Strijder124/status/2093833510821790113
A Dutch politician just said that filling the wells with cement costs 2 billion euros
As a German, I regret to inform you that your remarks regarding German nuclear power plants suggest, at the very least, poor research. The three power plants had not undergone maintenance for years because their decommissioning had long been planned. A complete inspection and hardware update lasting several months, at a minimum, would have been required. Furthermore, no new personnel had been trained for years due to the planned shutdown. In addition, the fuel rods were depleted, and the lead time for new ones was at least a year.
How can the Dutch act so irresponsible and none in the country knows this? They are stealing the future optionality of their kids, in a world of instability and lack of energy! Selling the idea for more votes? What exactly?
What would prevent a future government from undoing the ban, and just drilling new wells into the field? That is, why is the decision actually irreversible?
What ever happened to “strategic autonomy” and “resilience”…
Interesting that it's spearheaded by D66, the explicitly 'YIMBY' party.
I don't know if this is a story about permanent closure rather than just stupid green policies ("we will stop producing gas, but not using it"). I don't think it is impossible to restart drilling under Groningen or to turn on German nuclear plants.
Often the refusal to reverse decisions you dislike is also a feature of European political systems, especially countries with coalition governments, where governments agree to "respect" the decisions of previous governments even if they opposed them vigorously at the time to get some continuity. Unfortunately this also leads to flywheels of bureaucracy where left-wing governments introduce new bureaucracy and benefits and instead of dismantling them, right-wing governments try to introduce "market mechanisms" and incentives to these (such as putting publicly-owned utilities in corporate legal structures)