We southern Swedes will never forgive you for forcing us to close down our perfectly working nuclear plant out of your irrational fears.
This Dane agrees with you.
This Norwegian, living in Denmark, agrees with both of you!
I talked to an engineer from one of the nuclear startups and they didn’t give a shit about whether you could do nuclear power in Denmark. The most important thing for them was long term policies so industry can make long term plans and investments.
This is because everything about nuclear energy is long-term. You can’t build a nuclear power plant with snap of the fingers, and if things go sour in your country whilst it’s operating, you now have a massive environmental and public health liability to deal with.
Just to be clear: When you build a nuclear plant you always have a massive environmental and public health liability to deal with. It’s just that “if things go sour” the liability is also not producing electricity.
And how will that help? The earliest when an entire country could reasonably expect to rely on nuclear power if they have no legal framework for it at all is probably in 30 years or so (20 years to build at least a few once the legal situation has been cleared up). How does that help the situation at all?
It helps in 30 years. Which is much better than never.
But literally any other form of energy generation can be deployed quicker and is cheaper and most are also less centralized.
We can do both.
It’s still to be determined if at a 90% renewable grid whether adding nuclear or wind/solar will be cheaper. You’ll need a whole lot more energy storage the closer you get to 100% intermittent renewable, so having some reliable base load with nuclear is likely cheaper.
Building way more renewable generation than needed at peak, plus elasticity brought by batteries (hello V2G cars) plus HVDC lines to transport power between regions will be faster and cheaper than deploying the most expensive form of power generation.
Yet, it’s the power companies that don’t want this. As it’s threatening their business model of central generation and metering every kWh going to the consumer.
This is the reason why these discussions keep popping up. Right wing parties are fully aligned with the centralised thinking of traditional power companies.
I’ll need substantiation on the cheaper. Batteries are expensive! And transmission loses get excessive after very long to distances.
Denmark is a small country. Transmission losses are much lower in high voltage DC lines. Battery storages get cheaper consistently. Denmark is close to Norway, where pump storage plants exist and can be built easily.
I’ve seen an article about submerged concrete spheres being used as pump energy storage. Here’s the relevant press release.
75% efficiency seems pretty decent considering you’re not as reliant on geographical locations (or at least get a lot more options)
Sources? Anyway, to get a good sized grid to smooth out intermittency, you’ll need to connect all Europe or more. I think there’s already some of that, but the longer distances you go, the more loss. I agree pumped hydro is a good option, but the promising sites tend to be quite limited when you try to scale up to a full grid. Plus the ecological concerns that come with dams need to be weighed too.
Energy diversity is important for national security.
And you think that just because they have something to help in 30 years they’ll sit there with a thumb up their ass and wait before doing anything else?
Never get involved in politics or management of any sort, thank you.
Because resources are limited. Committing to one technology over others means binding resources that cannot be used in other technologies. And nuclear power has pretty much the highest investment per power ratio. So instead of getting 20 GW of offshore wind power in 5 years, they get 1 GW of nuclear in 20 years.
The people building those wind turbines wouldn’t be the same as the ones building the nuclear reactor though and they don’t use all the same resources to build either. You’re talking like they’re building those things by only using local resources. All the pieces of those wind turbines could come from various European countries (guess you’ve never seen a blade being transported) and only the concrete ground anchor would be made locally. In the meantime you’ve got completely different contractors providing the parts necessary for the nuclear reactor and workers with different training assembling/building the thing.
People can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, crazy right?
Financial resources are resources. Also there are markets for project management, engineers, construction work… The concrete for the foundations is made in the same plants, imported material has to be transported on the same roads/railways/waterways…
All these resources that are not strictly specific to either industry will be competed over, driving the prices and also limiting how fast things can be done.
You can try eating and drinking at the same time and chewing bubble gum on top. Good luck keeping it separated while swallowing.
Are you building your powerplant offshore as well? Financial resources are one thing (although loans are a thing), but let’s not pretend that both things employ the same human resources and are built in the same place, there would be very little competition as the specializations aren’t the same.
Well, then why not put all that money into technology that helps people in a couple of months already?
Like what?
They are already doing renewables, which don’t have steady output. This is to provide a steady baseline.
The energy grid of tomorrow is is in no need of a baseline supply.
The baseline is often referred to as baseline supply, but in reality it’s baseline demand that always needs to be met. A steady supply made most sense in the past, but that’s not the case anymore thanks to renewables. Several countries already produce so much power at peak hours, the supply from renewables exceeds the total demand significantly (leading to negative energy prices).
Because renewables are the cheapest source of power by some distance, this means that it’s economically the best option to switch all other power generation off. Meaning that to ensure the baseline supply is met, you need a flexible source of power, one that quickly scales up and down without pricing itself out of the market doing so.
The renewable answer to this is batteries. The fossil fuel answer is natural gas reactors. Both options are cheaper than nuclear.
Nuclear takes too long to build and there’s just no economic case for it. It’s considerably better to invest in cheaper options with a much faster return on decarbonization.
Renewables and batteries have steady output and can be built much faster and cheaper than nuclear. It’s why 94% of all new power generation globally in 2024 was renewables.
Batteries plus solar to equal a constant output power is much more expensive than nuclear. It’s when you have other sources that you can have less storage that solar gets cheaper.
This wasn’t true 2 years ago and it’s even less true now.
Battery costs have dropped 80% in the past decade.
Here’s a reddit comment that pretty succinctly sums it all up: https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/1h62c1i/comment/m0ecbyq/
Denmark is surrounded by sea. Offshore wind power is pretty reliable and it is a lie that solar and batteries would be more expensive than building nuclear power plant. Plenty of households theses days buy solar with battery and safe money with it comparing to buying from the grid. And nuclear power is the most expensive in the grid. For Europe nuclear is at around 20 cents/kWh, coal around 8-10, lignite around 5, and solar is down to less then 5 cents/kWh.
Furthermore nuclear power will get more expensive the more demand is there as Uranium is a finite resource. And the most likely trading partner will be Russia or countries under Russias influence.
Finite resource goes for battery minerals even more so, and solar production capacity is also limited.
Agree on offshore wind, but it’s also got intermittency.
You can save money with solar and batteries, but only after about 30 years. That’s a much longer payback time than any other forms like nuclear. Plus you wouldn’t have representative grid loads overnight.
The costs you cited are just for the panel electricity, not taking into account any storage.
Right now it costs about $400/kwh. You’ll need about 12 hours storage to cover over night, which means about $50k/kw. If the lifespan is 20 years, (which is generous) that means the added cost is 28 cents per kwh just for the storage. I’m sure the batteries will get more efficient, but they will also be in more demand, so that price could go up or down.
Do you have better numbers showing 100% solar is cheaper than nuclear? Why is nuclear bad? It’s less deaths than even wind energy and is a proven technology to minimize emissions. Why limit yourself?
deleted by creator
And solar when you’re so far north is pretty stupid
Creating a new legal framework with examples to copy and compare is a lot easier than improving an existing one.
Why tf is the bar “the would country needs to run on nuclear power” or this is a waste? You do realize that good is not the enemy of great right? That moving in the right direction is a good thing… it’s this all or nothing mentality that leaves us paralyzed and ineffective
Economics of scale. Either you commit to a nuclear industry to have it somewhat less expensive, see France for an example where it is still failing catastrophically. Or you just pay even more money for even less energy.
