Denmark is considering lifting 40-year-old nuclear power ban, minister says
COPENHAGEN, May 14 (Reuters) - Denmark is considering lifting a 40-year-old ban on nuclear power to enhance its energy security, its energy minister said, marking a significant policy shift in a country that has prioritised expanding wind and solar power.
The Danish government will analyse the potential benefits of new nuclear power technologies, with a report expected to be ready next year, Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities Lars Aagaard told Danish daily Politiken in an interview published late on Tuesday.
"We can see that there is a development underway with new nuclear power technologies - small, modular reactors," Aagaard said in remarks confirmed by his ministry on Wednesday.
"But it's not enough that they have potential. We also need to know what it means for Danish society if we are to enable these technologies," he said.
He also dismissed the idea that traditional nuclear power technologies would return in Denmark, which banned it in 1985.
"We continue the energy policy we have pursued for many years in Denmark. Solar and wind are the cheapest and fastest way to the green transition," Aagaard said.
In 2005, Danes celebrated as neighbouring Sweden shut down the Barseback 2 nuclear reactor, located near Copenhagen just across the Oresund strait.
While Sweden has closed more of its nuclear plants over the past decade, the current government is taking a firmly pro-nuclear stance and is seeking to build new capacity.
Later on Wednesday, Aagaard is due to appear at a public hearing in parliament and answer questions from opposition parties favouring the revival of nuclear power.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
Controversial Skye to Fort Augustus powerline revamp approved
Controversial plans to upgrade 99 miles (160km) of overhead powerline in the Highlands have been approved by the Scottish Transmission said its line from Ardmore, near Portree on Skye, to Fort Augustus on the shores of Loch Ness was reaching the end of its operational £480m revamp includes burying nine miles (15km) of cable underground to avoid spoiling views of Skye's Cuillin Council objected to the project in 2023 because of concerns about the impact on other landscapes, while campaigners said they were "deeply disappointed" it had now been given the go-ahead. SSEN Transmission said the green light from the Scottish government, known as Section 37 consent, was the last hurdle in the planning process for its Skye Reinforcement project. The existing power line was constructed in three sections between 1956 and Transmission said the new line would have greater capacity and could take power from new renewable director Rob McDonald said: "The Skye Reinforcement project is crucial to maintaining local network reliability and will play an important role in helping the UK achieve its energy security and clean power ambitions."This project and our wider investment programme will also be a major driver of jobs and economic growth locally and across the north of Scotland, bringing substantial opportunities for communities and businesses."The Scottish government said the replacement would lead to an increase in renewable energy provision, and protect the security of electricity supply to about 32,000 homes and businesses. But Skye Wind Farm Information Group said Highland Council's opposition to the revamp should have triggered a public Dr Andrew Robinson said: "Instead, planning consent has been given and the council's objection ignored. "This is a failure of democracy."The group said the project would require new electricity towers, and two "giant" substations at Edinbane and Broadford on said large camps to house construction workers would also be created near Robinson added: "Other options to build a smaller scale line, replacing the existing infrastructure and allowing some extra capacity for smaller-scale, community-owned wind farms were never properly considered."He said the group might look into seeking a judicial review, a legal process where a judge looks at a decision made by a public Council said it would not be appropriate for it to and Islands Conservative MSP Jamie Halcro Johnston accused the Scottish government of "riding roughshod" over local democracy to meet renewables targets. SSEN Transmission said new steel electricity towers would be needed on about 68 miles (110km) of the route between Fort Augustus and poles would carry the line from Edinbane to Transmission - which is responsible for the electricity network in the north of Scotland - said an overhead line at Kylerhea in Skye, to the mainland would be replaced and closely follow the route of the existing overhead at Broadford and Edinbane in Skye would be Cuillins are one of the best-known mountain landscapes in Cuillin Ridge is described in climbing as one of Europe's best mountaineering is seven miles (11km) long and its summits include 11 Munros - which are peaks over 914m (3,000ft).
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Greenland and the Antarctic are ‘not for sale', Macron tells Trump
Greenland and the Antarctic are 'not for sale', Emmanuel Macron has declared in a thinly-veiled rebuke to Donald Trump. The US president is reportedly costing up the price of taking over Greenland and planning to offer more cash than Denmark pays to the autonomous territory. But at the opening of the UN Ocean Conference in Nice, on the French Riviera, Mr Macron said: 'The abysses are not for sale, and neither is Greenland, nor is Antarctica or the high seas.' The French president also told world leaders that it was a 'necessity' for nations to impose a moratorium on deep-sea mining. 'I think it's madness to launch predatory economic action that will disrupt the deep seabed, disrupt biodiversity, destroy it. The moratorium on deep-seabed exploitation is an international necessity,' he told the gathering. His call was joined by Antonio Guterres, the UN secretary general, who said the world could not let the deepest oceans 'become the wild west'. The manoeuvres by the Trump administration have brought urgency to the debate around deep-sea mining, as the US moves to fast-track exploration in international waters and sidesteps global efforts to regulate the nascent sector. According to the Washington Post, the White House is considering whether the US could pay Greenland more than the Danish annual subsidy to the territory, which is about $600 million (£463 million) a year. Trump officials believe that such a payment could 'sweeten the pot' and make it attractive enough to persuade Greenlanders to want to join the US. The International Seabed Authority, which has jurisdiction over the ocean floor outside national waters, is meeting in July to discuss a global mining code to regulate mining in the ocean depths. Mr Guterres said he supported these negotiations and urged caution as countries navigate these 'new waters on seabed mining'. 'The deep sea cannot become the wild west,' he said, to applause from the plenary floor. Mr Macron said a global pact to protect marine life in international waters had received enough support to become law and was 'a done deal'. The high seas treaty struck in 2023 requires ratifications from 60 signatory countries to enter into force, something France hoped to achieve before Nice. The French president said about 50 nations had ratified the treaty and 15 others had formally committed to joining them. This 'allows us to say that the high seas treaty will be implemented,' he predicted. The Prince of Wales warned over the weekend that humans have reduced Earth's abundant oceans to 'barren deserts', causing a crisis that can no longer be dismissed as 'out of sight, out of mind'. He also said the destruction of sea forests was 'simply heartbreaking' as he issued a rallying cry for bold action to save the world's oceans and 'change the course of history' during a speech to world leaders. 'Put simply: the ocean is under enormous threat, but it can revive itself,' he told the Blue Economy and Finance Forum in Monaco.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Forget Greta Thunberg's greenwashing – this is the energy of the future
In 2019, Greta Thunberg travelled to the UN Climate Action Summit in New York by boat. Eschewing the evil aeroplane, she crossed the Atlantic aboard a 'zero-emissions yacht' festooned with solar panels; it took her a fortnight. Very virtuous: but the yacht's skipper then flew home to Europe, and another crew of five flew from Europe to New York to sail the boat back. 'In the end,' Tim Gregory remarks in Going Nuclear, 'Thunberg's voyage produced more emissions than if she and her father had just taken return transatlantic flights.' Nonetheless, Thunberg's self-congratulatory stunt has been credited with strengthening the Nordic movement called 'Flight Shame' (Flygskam), which tries to make people feel bad about flying. Gregory's target in this book, instead, is what you might call 'nuclear shame'. We have been conditioned, he laments, to think that radioactivity is terrifying, and that nuclear power stations are absurdly expensive and liable to blow up. As a physicist who works at the National Nuclear Laboratory in Sellafield, Gregory knows better. Assuming one agrees with the ambition to reduce carbon emissions to 'net zero' by 2050, he argues, more nuclear power is the only sensible way to do it. Wind and solar power are great but intermittent. 'Biomass' is just a sciencey-sounding label for burning wood and pretending its carbon emissions don't count. We can pass over rapidly the 'de-growth' movement of radical economists who fantasise about drastically reducing everyone's standard of living. At some level, the environmentalist disdain for nuclear power is a symptom of their hatred and distrust of technology and human civilisation itself. Many sacred cows of the green zealot are thus energetically slaughtered. A nuclear power station, Gregory accepts, is not 'emissions-free' when you count mining the uranium and building the plant, but its lifetime emissions per watt of energy generated are comparable to those of wind and solar. The confirmed death tolls of all nuclear accidents are remarkably small in comparison to the far greater numbers killed by pollution from coal. And to neglect nuclear generation in favour of focusing on 'renewables' – as Germany notoriously did after the Fukushima accident, shutting down all its reactors – actually condemns you to using more fossil fuels (in this case, Russian gas) in order to provide baseload power. But nuclear, critics say, takes too long to build. It needn't, Gregory retorts: the median time of a new build globally is only 6.4 years. The delays and cost overruns of Hinkley Point C admittedly 'make nuclear power look farcical', but just look at other bureaucratic farces such as HS2. Meanwhile, between 2019 and 2024, the UAE built a fleet of nuclear reactors that now powers a quarter of the country. What about nuclear waste? Well, the 'low-level' kind, which makes up 87 per cent of the total, includes things like gloves and lab equipment, most of which is 'far less radioactive than a banana'. The world's stockpile of the most dangerous 'high-level' radioactive waste ever generated would fit in a cube 33 metres across. You could re-use much of it as fuel in other reactors, or bury it deep underground, like the Finns do. This book is a highly engaging and lucid primer on nuclear technology. Gregory also describes some fascinating advances in nuclear medicine (better-targeted radiotherapy) and 'atomic gardening' (using radiation to find new crop strains). And he celebrates the nuclear batteries that power our exploration of the universe via space probes such as Voyager and the Mars rovers. Going Nuclear is also, in some ways, a lament for a retro sci-fi future. Just as we never got flying cars, we never got electricity that was, as early nuclear enthusiasts notoriously promised, 'too cheap to meter'; nor did we get nuclear reactors on the Moon. (Gregory is winningly fond of 'vintage technology that never saw its full potential'). But, Gregory argues, we still could have these things, and the second-best time to start is now. The scolding doominess of much climate activism, he suggests, is silly and counterproductive: 'Informed optimism is far superior.' Nuclear energy was the future once; maybe it will be again.
