this post was submitted on 14 May 2025

286 points (99.0% liked)

World News

46565 readers

3041 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

286

Denmark is considering lifting 40-year-old nuclear power ban, minister says (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 day ago by Gsus4@mander.xyz to c/world@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] troed@fedia.io 79 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We southern Swedes will never forgive you for forcing us to close down our perfectly working nuclear plant out of your irrational fears.

[–] PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This Dane agrees with you.

[–] P1nkman@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago

This Norwegian, living in Denmark, agrees with both of you!

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Disaster@sh.itjust.works 14 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] chillhelm@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

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.

[+] taladar@sh.itjust.works -14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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?

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 64 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It helps in 30 years. Which is much better than never.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 day ago (4 children)

But literally any other form of energy generation can be deployed quicker and is cheaper and most are also less centralized.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Energy diversity is important for national security.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Ton@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'll need substantiation on the cheaper. Batteries are expensive! And transmission loses get excessive after very long to distances.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 8 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.org 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

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)

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Ton@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

https://www.cencepower.com/blog-posts/line-losses-power-transmission-3-types

2 to 3 percent.

[–] torrentialgrain@lemm.ee 2 points 19 hours ago

We need to modernize and further integrate the European grid anyway.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago

We can do both.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Do they use concrete? They compete in the concrete industry. Do they use steel? They compete in the steel industry. Do they need structural planning and approval? They compete over structural designers and inspectors. Do they need project management? They compete over project managers. Do they need logistics? They compete over logistics. Do they need electric wiring? They compete over electric wiring. Do they need controls and automation? They compete over controls and automation. Do they need electrical engineers? They compete over electrical engineers. Do they need construction site managers? They compete over those too. Do all of the companies involved need IT, accountants, attorneys, HR, managers, offices...? yes they do, so they compete there too.

Offshore wind plants need onshore buildings too, where there is control structures, converters, grid access... Denmark is a flat and island rich country. It is likely that a nuclear power plant would be built by the sea, so you also need maritime engineers...

Finally, if loans are a thing why don't all countries just take on infinite loans and solve all their infrastructure needs at once? Denmark has its own currency still and is a relatively small country. What do you think happens if Denmark goes from a national debt of around 2-3 billion € to a national debt of 50 billion € to finance a mayor new nuclear plant? Just buying all those Euros will deflate the DKK into worthlessness.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, then why not put all that money into technology that helps people in a couple of months already?

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Like what?

They are already doing renewables, which don't have steady output. This is to provide a steady baseline.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 8 points 20 hours ago

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.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 8 points 20 hours ago

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/

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45596

Utility-scale battery storage costs decreased nearly 70% between 2015 and 2018

So we are looking at much lower numbers in a few years as the trend has continued.

You can save money with solar and batteries, but only after about 30 years.

That is false.

Example for US around 7.5 years with tax credit -> pessimistically 15 years

Example for Germany 7 years w.o., 12.5 years with battery storage. -> pessimistically 20 years.

hat’s a much longer payback time than any other forms like nuclear.

That is false. Take the spanish nuclear industry for example

Nuclear power plants are not amortized. Every year they invest around 300 million Euro. Nuclear generation is currently incurring losses due to a disproportionate, discriminatory and confiscatory taxation.

The amortization of nuclear power plants is not complete. In fact, from this time to the end of its operation it will be necessary to invest around €3 billion to maintain the plants in optimal safety and reliability conditions.

Take Germany for an example

Bei neugebauten Kernkraftwerken in Deutschland werden laut dem Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz Gestehungskosten zwischen 14 und 19 Cent pro Kilowattstunde erwartet. Das Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft gibt in einer Studie für Greenpeace Energy an, dass die gesamtgesellschaftlichen Kosten in Deutschland im Jahr 2021 zwischen 26 und 38 Cent pro Kilowattstunde lagen.

Allerdings geraten auch abgeschriebene Kernkraftwerke in Märkten, in denen die Strompreise infolge aktueller wirtschaftlicher Entwicklungen wie des Schiefergasbooms in den USA sowie des Ausbaus von erneuerbaren Energien in vielen Staaten der Welt gefallen sind, wirtschaftlich unter Druck. In den USA wurden deshalb in den letzten Jahren mehrere Kernkraftwerke lange vor ihrem genehmigten Laufzeitende außer Betrieb genommen.

So nuclear power at best only generates profits if the market is arbitrarily restricted and the power plants are protected against low energy prices, which in turn means to stifle economic growth and competitiveness in everything else.

More realistically new nuclear power plants are a mass grave of capital. See UKs hinkley point now at more than 50 billion € for 3.2 GW. That is a whooping 15,625 €/kW.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -2 points 23 hours ago

And solar when you're so far north is pretty stupid

[–] monogram@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago

Creating a new legal framework with examples to copy and compare is a lot easier than improving an existing one.

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 5 points 22 hours ago

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.