The debate about nuclear power in Denmark between the population and the politicians has recently taken over the media.
However, the highly polarized debate is filled with so many opposing statements that 16 leading Danish researchers believe that it is now time to intervene and lay out the facts.
“It is understandable that such a debate arises in light of the current climate and energy supply challenges, but the debate should be as fact-based as possible,” reads the foreword of a brand new memo “Facts about nuclear power: Input for a fact-based discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power as part of the green transition in Denmark”.
According to the authors, who include professors in the area of energy and economy from Aalborg University, University of Southern Denmark, DTU, University of Copenhagen, and Aarhus University, the goal of the note is making the debate “as fact-based as possible”.
The publication of the memo comes in the wake of a Megafon survey from last month, which shows that, for the first time ever, a majority of Danes are in favour of introducing nuclear power in Denmark.
As many as 40 percent of Danes are in favour, while 36 percent are against.
But this may be because the population is not sufficiently informed. In any case, the conclusions in the new memo are clear:
Nuclear power has certain advantages but is more expensive and takes longer to build than wind and solar. Denmark does not need nuclear power when the weather is not sunny and windy, and there would be problems with finding a location for a nuclear power plant and radioactive waste in Denmark.
Using figures on construction costs, lifetimes, operating costs, and construction periods for nuclear power plants in Europe and corresponding figures for renewable energy in Denmark, the researchers directly compared the costs of producing electricity from wind, solar, and nuclear power.
While the costs of electricity from wind and solar have fallen significantly over time, the price of new nuclear power has increased.
Today, electricity from new nuclear power plants built in Western Europe is approximately twice as expensive as electricity from Danish wind farms and solar panels, even when assuming a lifetime of the nuclear power plant of 60 years, authors behind the new memo claim and expect the price difference to be even greater in the future.
There is nuclear power available elsewhere in the world, which costs about the same as wind and solar power in Denmark. However, this only applies to existing plants that have had their lifetime extended, or plants built in, for example, China.
“It is not an option we have in Denmark,” it reads.
One of the arguments that opponents of nuclear power often bring up is that it takes too long to build a nuclear power plant. This argument is based on the three EPR reactors Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, Hinkley Point C in the UK, and Flamanville 3 in France, all of which have been plagued by massive budget overruns and delays.
“Today, the construction period of a nuclear power plant in Western Europe is approx. 15 years measured from the start of construction to commissioning. In addition, there is a planning period of around 5–8 years. This can be compared with a construction period of 2-3 years for wind and solar plus a planning period of around 1–6 years,” the memo states.
According to the researchers, the construction periods for the various energy technologies are highly significant as Denmark aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 70 percent by 2030 as well as to be climate neutral by 2050.
“This requires being able to complete specific projects relatively quickly,” the authors behind the memo say and point out that nuclear power also requires significantly higher government support than wind and solar.
“Today, wind and solar in Denmark require neither subsidies nor price guarantees from the state. In the latest tender for the 1,000 MW Thor Offshore Wind Farm, the state received an offer of DKK 2.8 billion due to great competition. By comparison, the construction of nuclear power in England requires a guarantee of around 80 øre/kWh for 35 years.”
But even if nuclear power costs more than wind and solar, the price of the technologies cannot be fully compared.
The authors behind the new note also recognize that it is “difficult to directly compare solar, wind, and nuclear power”, since a nuclear reactor produces electricity independently of wind conditions, while wind turbines and solar panels are dependent on the wind blowing or the sun shining.
But regardless of whether a future electricity supply is based on nuclear power or wind and solar or is a combination of several technologies, there will be a need for peak and reserve load plants. Even during windless and sunless periods, nuclear power will not solve this issue, they estimate.
“The price of electricity from a nuclear power plant built for reserve load will be as expensive as from a gas-fired power plant with the current extremely high gas prices, and far higher than the expected cost of a gas-fired peak load power plant based on green gas in the future.”
In addition, due to the high investment costs, according to the researchers, nuclear power is “ill-suited for this task”.
This is due to, in addition to the price, the fact that a gas turbine with biogas is technically “much better” for quickly ramping up and down as the wind power rises and falls.
A nuclear power plant, with its steam turbine, is not suitable for rapid ramping, according to the researchers’ explanation.
An important argument, which advocates of nuclear power often highlight and which speaks against an energy system based on wind and solar, is that wind and solar require large investments in the power grid, which must have a certain “excess capacity” to handle the fluctuating energy production from wind turbines and solar panels. But here there are other solutions than nuclear power, the researchers behind the memo claim.
“The fluctuating production from wind and solar creates a need for capacity to balance the system when there is no supply from wind and solar. This could be, for example, transmission network capacity to balance over geographical distances, capacity in the form of gas turbines that can run on green gas from the grid during such periods, and there may be a need for capacity in the form of electrolysis for hydrogen production, so that the hydrogen is produced when the biggest amount of electricity is available in the system.”
In order to assess how nuclear power would affect the overall energy system and the associated costs, the researchers have carried out energy system analyses and modelled a future Danish energy system with and without nuclear power in order to quantify the economic significance of the need for extra capacity.
“The advantage of minor imbalances in the system due to a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant in the Danish energy system can be expressed as an economic advantage of DKK 150–180 million per year. This advantage arises from saved investments in electrolysis capacity, corresponding to what the alternative based only on renewable energy requires in order to eliminate the imbalances that occur when there is no renewable energy production.”
In addition, the advantage of less peak and reserve load can be calculated to potentially save approximately DKK 200 million per year. However, it must be taken into account that an investment into a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant, according to the researchers' calculations, would increase the annual costs of the Danish energy supply by DKK 1.5–2 billion. depending on whether it replaces part of the Danish offshore wind farms or part of the Danish onshore wind farms.
“Even when the advantages of nuclear power are taken into account, a green transition with nuclear power is significantly more expensive than a green transition without nuclear power. Moreover, nuclear power comes with the disadvantages related to the safety risk of building a plant in Denmark and the challenge of finding a place to deposit the radioactive waste,” the memo states.
The researchers behind the new memo therefore conclude that nuclear power is more expensive than solar panels and wind turbines, and that the potential advantages of nuclear power in the energy system are not sufficient to offset the extra costs.
“In addition to these conclusions, there are also a number of unanswered questions that we do not deal with in this memo, but which are essential to answer if nuclear power is to be built in Denmark,” they write and present four points:
Where in Denmark should such nuclear power plants be located? This requires a longer planning phase, as it may be difficult to identify a specific location.
Regardless of where we place a nuclear power plant in Denmark, it will involve a security risk for the entire country. The risk of a major accident is small, but the consequences can be enormous. The Japanese government has previously estimated that the total costs of the clean-up after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident—including the clean-up in the region, disposal of waste, and compensation for those affected—will amount to 21.5 trillion yen, equivalent to around DKK 1,000 billion. The Japanese think tank Japan Center for Economic Research has provided an estimate of up to DKK 5,000 billion.
How will radioactive waste be handled and where should it be deposited? As the reactor will produce radioactive waste, decisions must be made about how it should be handled and where it should be deposited.
Decommissioning the plants at the end of their useful life is an important process to take into account, and it can become a significant cost. It is unclear whether this is included in the figures behind our analyses, e.g. IEA World Energy Model data, and will therefore require a more comprehensive analysis to include properly.
In addition, the researchers are open to their analysis and data being challenged.
“We would like to see an open debate about the data that we present here. That is why we also call this document the ‘first version’, and if there is anything that needs to be corrected or supplemented, we are happy to do so in a potential revised version. In any case, we hope that the memorandum contributes to making the debate more fact-based and transparent. It is necessary for it to be such.”
