2d ago

Denmark rethinking 40-year nuclear power ban amid Europe-wide shift

www.theguardian.com

Denmark is reconsidering its 40-year ban on nuclear power in a major policy shift for the renewables-heavy country.

The Danish government will analyse the potential benefits of a new generation of nuclear power technologies after banning traditional nuclear reactors in 1985, its energy minister said.

The Scandinavian country is one of Europe’s most renewables-rich energy markets and home to Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore wind company. More than 80% of its electricity is generated from renewables, including wind, biofuels and solar, according to the International Energy Agency.

World News @lemmit.online

Lemmit.Online bot @lemmit.online

BOT

2d ago

Denmark rethinking 40-year nuclear power ban amid Europe-wide shift

www.theguardian.com /world/2025/may/14/denmark-rethinking-40-year-nuclear-power-ban-amid-europe-wide-shift

47 comments

I’m not against nuclear power, but I don’t see it becoming a thing in Denmark. It is simply too expensive compared to solar and wind.
- The only reason your electrical grid works is because you use Norway and Sweden for balancing. As we also deploy more renewables, there won't be enough balancing power unless more is built.
  Can be hydro, nuclear, huge batteries etc. And at least Sweden is capped out on hydro.
  
  The only reason? I’d like to see proof of that. We have quite a few power plants around the country. However, you right that it is a great advantage we work together with our neighbours.
  I think various kinds of batteries will become a huge deal in the coming years.
  
  Nuclear helps when you have a very bad drought and very little wind for a long time. Bad doldrums, or perhaps big fires changing wind patterns during a hot summer. Certain parts of the world may need to rethink certain forms of power generation as the climate begins to change at an accelerated pace. Our reservoirs and dams in western Canada and the western US are already below historic averages, and we've used hydro for decades and decades.
  Nuclear is a very consistent, base load source. Expensive, but very reliable, and most importantly, cleaner and safer than coal or methane ("natural gas") generators in the event you need to meet extraordinary demand all of a sudden.
  
  Our reservoirs and dams in western Canada and the western US are already below historic averages, and we’ve used hydro for decades and decades
  It's funny you mention that because this just came up today:
  Tasmania’s hydro power hits record lows as trading strategy shifts from baseload to firming
  https://reneweconomy.com.au/tasmanias-hydro-power-hits-record-lows-as-trading-strategy-shifts-from-baseload-to-firming/
  The question is if nuclear power ends up being a non-used source of energy unless in extreme situations like
  very bad drought and very little wind for a long time
  then is it an appropriate solution? If it's only for a short time then it sounds like gas would be better
  
  Yeah, weather is shifting a lot. Methane is really bad to build as any leaks (and they do leak) release gas that accelerates climate change way faster than carbon. Nuclear is a reliable source for a long time. I suspect that many of the world's hydro dams will become less useful as things deteriorate. Perhaps some can be replaced by geothermal, or solar/wind/battery, but for places that are in geographically disadvantaged locations, nuclear is a great option.
  
  Absolutely not, in no way is natural gas better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcoN2bdACGA Please watch this. This is Why Trump is threatening Greenland.
  
  Kyle Hill has a great video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcoN2bdACGA Please watch this. This is Why Trump is threatening Greenland.
- Also just look how hard it is to find spots for renewables
  Surely there will be no NIMBYs preventing atomic power plants and storage spaces for the used material from being built...
  
  No one wants anything like that near where they live. Though personally, I have nothing against wind turbines as long as they are placed far enough away to not disturb you. Like I really don’t see the problem with wind turbines 10-20km from the coast which some people think completely ruins the view.
  As for nuclear power plant in Denmark. One reason I don’t see it happening anytime soon is exactly due NIMBY. We have yet to figure out what to do with the small amount of leftovers from the Risø reactor.
  
  Yeah, it's so hard to find space ... so let's not go with the most space efficent method!
- billions to build said reactors, and then years of regulatory approval plus all the maintenance comes with it, and the safety of the area around said nuclear reactors. if they had it from the start, then it might be different.
  
  There is only one active thorium reactor in the world, and its 2MW test plant in China, out in the Gobi desert. They just managed to refuel it for the first time, which is a great milestone, but in no way, shape or form are thorium reactors a viable power source anywhere else on earth, much less "so portable they fit in a 40ft shipping container."
- Please don't post the same comment multiple times in different parts of the thread.

47 comments