Jens Christiansen

I assume to keep the plant working it must have some business case, which it doesn't it seems. A lot of the plants are quite old, so if they are to continue they must be maintained. With such a low utilization, I guess it's not deemed feasible. This chart actually shows utilization factor, which for most of the current capacity is less than 0.5 %, so it's not maintained.

Rather strange they want to remove that much power plants. They are already built only needs a little maintenance and standby fee. But still provide more power than much Danish nuclear power plans. I guess they are counting on batteries to do the heavy lifting even though they are still subjected to full taxes on electricity...

Oops, I got to comment on a pro-nuclear Facebook site... lets see if they will allow real data to be posted. It is truly amazing that just a doubling of wind and solar in Denmark can provide 90% of our electricity in winter!

@Arpe_DK That is false, the thermal capacity is being phased out. It is maybe at 5 GW now, and some of that is not able to start production if needed.

@jenshigh There is no decrease in lower dispatchable power. It is still at 8GW. It is not being used because it is cheaper to buy from neighbours and even greener also 🤷

Well, it is a serious matter, so yes. It is not only 2 GW, it is 3 GW. With increasing demand and decreasing dispatchable local power, it will only become larger. Nuclear is not there only to fill those gaps. It is a way to construct a robust green energy system with less import dependence and more reliability. There's no way around it.

@jenshigh Making it in percent to make it more dramatic? Those 80% import in summer is only 2GW doesn't leave much space for nuclear and is only present for a few hours at night.

So let's say that leaves room for 2 GW of new nuclear, just from existing sites. That is a large role, which yields roughly 15 TWh of electricity. With local demand clusters, and the necessary buildout of new demand, storage, and transmission, nuclear could play just as large a role as anything else. But right now, the low hanging fruit is that 2 GW of new nuclear. Denmark is abusing Norway and Sweden's reliable power. Exchange is good, but it should not be a lifeline, like the way we use it in Denmark. Both countries actually express a strong political opinion to decrease cooperation and even cut interconnectors, because they import our volatile and expensive system. That makes the case for nuclear even stronger.

This is the current fossil fuel based baseload in Denmark. We have ~8GW of traditional capacity installed in Denmark yet they rarely exceed 2GW combined, mostly at 1-1.5GW sometimes even as low as 500MW. It does not leave much capacity for nuclear to play a role. You either have to force out other players by providing cheap electricity likely at a loss, or do as Sweden block other countries from competing on our grid. Currently Denmark is earning a good amount of money buying electricity from Norway and Sweden to sell it to UK, Holland and Germany. However, Sweden is usually not interested in buying cheap electricity from Denmark like Norway and the others are.

Of course, we must expand the grid as fast as possible. But it is a massive bottleneck for the green transition. Vestkystforbindelsen, just one 400 kV transmission line in Jutland, took 11 years to build. This bottleneck affects the expansion of wind, solar, new demand and storage significantly. But new nuclear units already fit existing power plant locations. So it is not a serious bottleneck, but is instead a great way to increase our share of green energy. I am not saying we should not expand wind, solar and storage as well. But a doubling like you say is not feasible. Multiplying power series by a factor of two is one thing. Building and integrating such large shares of renewable power is not possible without expanding the grid and having the demand for it. Currently we have neither and it is a major challenge to get it. Focusing solely on expanding renewables, while saying it is fast and efficient, is simply wrong. New nuclear is a way to diversify the risk of hitting bottlenecks in the transition, utilizing the grid better, and solving the parts that are nearly impossible for weather-dependent renewables to cover.

@jenshigh How do you increase the capacity then? Denmark is headed for 10 GW power demand on the grid, wouldn't you like to expand?

@Arpe_DK Replace the already existing power plants with nuclear, simple really. They have the necessary infrastructure already.

@jenshigh So how will you add nuclear then 😅

@Arpe_DK There is not available capacity on the grid to connect batteries either

@jenshigh 🔋

@sollidnuclear What's going on in Austria

A Majority of EU Citizens Support Nuclear Energy 💙 The top 5 most pro-nuclear countries: 1️⃣ Czechia (77%) 2️⃣ Finland (71%) 3️⃣ Poland (69%) 4️⃣ Denmark (66%) 5️⃣ France (66%) These numbers come from a European Commission survey (Special Eurobarometer 557) asking Europeans: “Do you think nuclear energy will have a positive, negative, or no effect on our way of life in the next 20 years?” Compared with the same survey four years earlier, positive attitudes toward nuclear increased by 10 percentage points. The country that saw the biggest increase is surprisingly Denmark. Positive attitudes among Danes rose by 44 percentage points, from 22% to 66%. This enormous shift places Denmark in the top 5 most pro-nuclear countries in the EU. This is a country that banned nuclear energy for electricity production in 1999 and kept it out of national energy planning since 1985. One thing is clear: EU citizens increasingly support nuclear energy, and the trend is only growing

@Haag_Jens Den virkelige "alle er 12 år gamle"-tese er jo, at hele verden mere eller mindre anerkender atomkraft som en streng nødvendighed for at skabe et grønt og robust energisystem, men lige præcis i Danmark giver det slet ikke nogen mening.

@jenshigh Jo, tror klart der er tale om en anti-atomkraft-konspiration, ikke at det er dyrt og langsomt ift danske forhold.

På en eller anden måde svært ikke at se hele atomkraft-ja-politikken som endnu et udtryk for "alle er 12 år gamle"-tesen. Fuck, om de fleste forskere siger, der på nuværende tidspunkt er ringe grundlag for rentabel atomkraft i Danmark - det LYDER sejt, altså går vi ind for det

@Arpe_DK @AndreasNyholm1 Der kommer masser af lagring og det er jo ikke lukket fordi vi eksporterer

Så der er kun tale om ~2GW akraft så alle de andre kilder ikke påvirker din kurve? Ikke kun Dansk vind og sol der sætter elprisen til nul, Tyskland og Holland har ofte 100% sol i sommerperioden. Hvis den strøm stadig kommer ind over grænsen hvordan sikre du så at dit lukkede akraft+hydrogen system undgår at blive påvirket?

Vildt imponerende vor meget solcellerne allerede producerer i starten af marts! Over 3 Gigawatt, det er knap 50% af danmarks strømforbrug Og vindmøllerne snurrer også 😃 @Arpe_DK

@Arpe_DK @AndreasNyholm1 Det laver bare fleksibelt forbrug

@jenshigh @AndreasNyholm1 Så 6-8GW atomkraft med hydrogen produktion om natten? Hvad er der sket med vindmøllerne, solceller og gas/biogas backup?

@Arpe_DK @AndreasNyholm1 Det her er planen for 100% atomkraft i Danmark i 2040

@jenshigh @AndreasNyholm1 Synes ikke jeg har set din plan for Akraft hvordan er det du vil levere mere end de 70%, det er lykkedes franskmændende, herhjemme i Danmark? Vind+sol ligger allerede på 60-70%, så hvad er planen?

@Arpe_DK @AndreasNyholm1 Ja når vi skal drive samfundet på elektricitet, så har vi faktisk ikke brug for at producere strøm 🥸

@jenshigh @AndreasNyholm1 Ja det undrer også mig at der er nogen som ser det som et problem her i 2026 🤷

@MagnusBarsoe Sverige lukkede 6 ud af 12 reaktorer, bl.a. Barsebäck, efter pres fra det danske Socialdemokrati. Danmark har et forbud som Socialdemokratiet nægter at ophæve. Tyskland lukkede sin industri af politiske årsager. Belgien, og endda Frankrig, havde politisk bestemte udfasninger.

Den gradvise udfasning af atomkraft skyldes grundlæggende ikke politik. Den skyldes, at de konkurrende teknologier er bedre og billigere og tilmed bliver hastigt bedre og billigere.

@pelledragsted God for Danmark, dårlig for kommunister

Når den yderste Trump-orienterede danske højrefløj elsker Rubios tale så meget, så ved man den har været ringe for 🇩🇰

@DerGraslutscher You are really trying to cope with this self-destructive phase-out

@jenshigh lol When you need to compare 80 Mio people to 5 Mio people to make your point its probably a bad point

Perspective on Germany's nuclear phaseout: The annual output was 7 times what Denmark generates from wind and solar. 7 times my entire country's effort to generate green electricity. Wiped out for no good reason.

This graph isn't meant to be per capita statistics or anything advanced. It's a simple comparison, to show that Germany's nuclear phaseout amounts to several smaller countries' entire supply of green electricity. Especially to show Denmark who supported this kind of policy.