Government to analyse potential benefits of new generation of reactors

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.

    • Wahots@pawb.socialEnglish
      81·
      21 hours ago

      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.

      • ikt@aussie.zoneEnglish
        2·
        21 hours ago

        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

        • Wahots@pawb.socialEnglish
          1·
          11 hours ago

          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.