Last weekend marked a milestone: 40 years ago, Denmark banned nuclear power over ... vibes.

Since then 🇩🇰
🏭 Burned coal for decades
❌ Helped shut down reactors abroad
🤫 Quietly imported nuclear
🤥 Became a climate hypocrite

This is the story of one of the most self-defeating energy policies.

It was a Friday. March 29, 1985, Danish politicians gave in to fear and misinformation. Led by the Social Democrats, supported by the Socialist People’s Party. They banned nuclear power entirely. The anti-nuclear movement had won. But the climate lost.

With nuclear off the table, Denmark burned coal. Then more coal. Then natural gas and biomass. For decades, Denmark’s grid was dirtier than almost any of its neighbors. Even one of the dirtiest in the EU.

Still is.

While Denmark was burning coal, Sweden built reactors and slashed emissions, which now has one of the cleanest grids in the world. 10 times cleaner than Denmark’s:

COâ‚‚e / kWh
Denmark: 173 g
Sweden: 18 g

Denmark didn’t just ban nuclear at home. It tried to kill it abroad. The Swedish Barsebäck plant, just 20 km from Copenhagen, was politically targeted by Denmark for decades. Result? Two working reactors were prematurely shut down because of pressure from Denmark.

And here’s the most ridiculous part: Denmark uses nuclear power. It just imports it. A big chunk of Danish electricity at times comes from Sweden, where over 40% of generation is nuclear. So… no nukes at home, but imported when convenient.

The same goes for Germany. When Denmark can’t import clean nuclear from Sweden or hydro from Norway, it buys German coal power instead. Once German nuclear, but we now how that went. Burning coal to “stay nuclear-free.” Make it make sense.

Denmark’s 1985 nuclear ban was never about science. It was about fear, politics, and vibes. 40 years later, it’s time to lift the ban!

[Text by Johan Christian Sollid as posted on twitter]

@collectifission
Lifting the nuclear ban may have been sensible 20 years ago, or 10 if we're lucky. But building new reactors today is (except for very unlikely circumstances) not just pointless, it's a massive detractor from more sensible investments of those resources into renewables.

On the off-chance that you're interested in facts and analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about, I can highly recommend @bert_hubert 's piece on the topic: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/nuclear-no-yes-maybe-but-not-like-this/

Nuclear power: no, yes, maybe, but not like this - Bert Hubert's writings

This is a story in three acts, where we go from “trying to procure more nuclear power plants in 2024 is nuts”, to “I could see why you’d want some nuclear”, to “but if so, not like this”. This post has been quite a trip to write, where I rediscovered that writing something down is an ACE way to find out you didn’t know what you were talking about. It was also a good exercise in changing my mind a few times.

Bert Hubert's writings

@nightoo I'm well aware of Bert's piece, thanks 🙂

And I'm all for discussing whether or not it makes sense to build nuclear or not. But we can't *have that discussion* if nuclear is *banned*. Once we have lifted the ban, we can have a discussion on the merits of building one or not.

This should be plainly obvious really.

@nightoo All sizable countries that have reached or gotten close to 100% clean electricity generation have done it with mostly nuclear or hydro. By pretending as if the unreliability of wind and solar isn't a huge problem and doubling down on a nuclear ban you only delay even more the much needed deep-decarbonization.

@ElTico sure that's a problem, but not an unsolvable one.
Redundancy, improved storage, HVDC connections to distant countries etc. are expected to solve these problems [1]. A nuclear reactor that will be finished by maybe 2040 (possibly later) is not much help in fighting climate change.
We have multiple ways of solving our current problems. Nuclear just happens to be a really inefficient solution.

[1] https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374

Can renewables provide baseload power?

@nightoo France was the fastest country to decarbonize without even having that as a goal with nuclear energy following the oil crisis. Sadly oil prices eventually went down and then fracking came. But of course that's no problem for wind and solar since they always use fossil gas as the backup.
@ElTico if your only "argument" is pointing at France and similar countries and yelling "Correlation!" there's no conversation to be had here.
I hope you'll figure the rest out on your own at some point.

@nightoo Whatever, there isn't a single country with the population of France or more that has reached the same share of electricity by wind and solar or more as France has with Nuclear.

Renewables are a joke unless you count hydro too, know why? Because Hydro is mostly reliable, unlike wind and solar, sadly, few countries have the potential hydro required for full decarbonization. Which is why nuclear will be needed.

@collectifission Soon starts the 14 International Uranium Film Festival of Rio de Janeiro. 29 nuclear films! See the program: https://uraniumfilmfestival.org/en/uranium-film-festival-rio-de-janeiro-may-2025
Uranium Film Festival Rio de Janeiro May 2025 | International Uranium Film Festival