The Danish Nuclear Alliance supports a technology neutral approach to nuclear power in Denmark and Europe.
The alliance consists of companies, business organisations, trade unions, foundations, research environments, and experts who wish to contribute to a factual and forward-looking dialogue about the role of nuclear power in Denmark’s and Europe’s energy supply. The initiative stems from a shared desire to strengthen the fact-based debate and create better framework conditions for innovation, research, and industry in Denmark.
News
Danish Radio, P1: Gold and Green Forests, from taboo to trend
Danish Metal and Saltfoss Energy are participating in the radio programme Gold and Green Forests on DR P1, hosted by Lars Trier Mogensen. Tune in as they talk about the the Danish Nuclear Alliance and explain why the alliance has emerged precisely now.
Press Release: Nuclear Power Is Part of Denmark’s and Europe’s Green Future
A number of Danish stakeholders from research, civil society, and the business community are establishing the Danish Nuclear Alliance, a collaboration aimed at contributing constructively to the Danish debate on modern nuclear power.
Børsen: Major players make a full-throated entry into nuclear power: Denmark should drop its opposition
Denmark must take part in the industrial opportunity emerging around nuclear power, argues a new alliance led by, among others, the Confederation of Danish Industry and the Danish Metalworkers’ Union. And they are also open to nuclear plants on Danish soil—if it makes economic sense.
The purpose of the alliance
The starting point is objectivity and technological neutrality. We will examine nuclear power in a Danish context, contribute analyses and promote dialogue with politicians, authorities and the public so that the debate is conducted on an informed basis. We will collaborate internationally and ensure that Danish interests are clearly represented in the EU’s work on small modular reactors (SMRs).
International organisations such as the UN, the IEA, and the European Commission assess that nuclear power can form a necessary and sustainable part of an integrated solution for the future energy system. This should be reflected in Danish energy policy.
Myth 1
Nuclear power is not a sustainable energy source
Today, under the EU Taxonomy Regulation and its 2022 Complementary Climate Delegated Act, the European Commission recognises certain nuclear power activities as environmentally sustainable for climate change mitigation when they meet technical, safety, and environmental requirements.
These nuclear activities are regarded as a technologies that can contribute to reducing CO₂ emissions where sufficient alternatives do not yet exist. This does not change the fact that, when the criteria are met, nuclear power satisfies the taxonomy’s definition of an environmentally sustainable activity.
This is based on assessments by the EU’s independent Joint Research Centre (JRC), which concluded in 2021 that, when the entire lifecycle is considered (mining, fuel fabrication, transportation, construction, operation, decommissioning, waste management, etc.), nuclear power is a low-carbon technology whose overall environmental impacts are comparable to those of other electricity generation options including renewables such as wind and solar energy.
Analyses by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) likewise find that nuclear power has very low life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions and among the lowest land use and material footprint of all energy sources measured per unit of energy produced in its comparative assessments.
Nuclear power can therefore be regarded as a potentially important part of Europe’s green transition, both today and in the future, alongside energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Myth 2
Nuclear power is dangerous
Nuclear power is among the safest energy sources when measured per unit of energy produced. According to data from Oxford’s platform Our World in Data, nuclear power, solar and wind have the lowest number of deaths per terawatt-hour, far below coal, oil and even gas
Many public perceptions are shaped by a few historical accidents that do not reflect today’s technology or Western safety standards. Chernobyl was a Soviet-era RBMK reactor with a design and safety culture that would not be licensed in the EU today.
According to the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), around 50 deaths so far as directly attributable to the Chernobyl accident, primarily among emergency workers and plant staff. Additional long-term cancer cases are subject to scientific uncertainty, but the central point remains: the scale of harm per unit of electricity from nuclear is still far lower than from fossil fuels. Assessing all nuclear power based on Chernobyl is comparable to refusing to fly because early aviation accidents occurred over 100 years ago.
At Fukushima, according to UNSCEAR and the Japanese government, no people died from radiation. No health damage has been observed as a result of radiation either. It was the earthquake and tsunami, one of the most powerful natural disasters in modern times, which killed around 20,000 people.
Nutidens kernekraft bygger på internationale standarder under FN og EU-regler med omfattende sikkerhedssystemer og mere end 60 års global erfaring. Værkerne er konstrueret og drevet efter strenge krav fra Det Internationale Atomenergiagentur (IAEA) og EU’s regler for nuklear sikkerhed og affaldshåndtering, med flere lag af fysiske og proceduremæssige sikkerhedsbarrierer. Derfor betragtes kernekraft i dag som en meget sikker og pålidelig energikilde sammenlignet med andre alternativer.
Myth 3
Nuclear power is not competitive.
Some recent European projects have indeed suffered from cost overruns and delays. In many cases this was linked to first-of-a-kind designs, lost industrial know-how after long construction gaps, and to political or local opposition that prolonged licensing and court processes.
Experience from countries such as France in the 1980s-1990s and South Korea more recently shows that standardised designs, stable regulation, and consistent political support tend to shorten schedules and reduce costs for nuclear fleets.
Production costs (LCOE) for solar, wind and nuclear power cannot be compared in isolation, because an electricity system must remain balanced every hour of the year.. What matters for consumers and industry is the total system cost – generation, flexibility, backup capacity and grids together. When examining total system costs, several European analyses in 2025 from, among others, the European Commission and the International Energy Agency (IEA) find that in systems with high shares of variable renewables, a combination of renewables and firm low-carbon capacity such as nuclear can be cost-competitive, and often cheaper than trying to rely on wind and solar plus storage and backup alone.
Nuclear power provides stable, dispatchable output and ancillary services, which can complement renewable energy and help keep overall system costs under control. Scenarios from the IEA and others show that systems including nuclear typically require less backup capacity and lower grid-reinforcement needs than systems that must compensate variable renewables exclusively with storage, flexible fossil plants and long-distance transmission.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that grid costs account for 10 to 30 percent of electricity system costs and increase significantly as the share of solar and wind increases. The higher the share, the faster the costs increase, especially due to the need for new connections and network reinforcements.
Today, nuclear power supplies roughly 25 percent of the EU’s electricity and is the single largest low-carbon source in the European power mix, alongside hydropower and rapidly growing wind and solar. In a decarbonised power system consistent with EU climate targets and the EU Taxonomy Regulation, nuclear can act as a firm, low-carbon backbone that, together with renewables, enables a competitive and reliable European energy system.
Myth 4
Nuclear power takes too long to build
In Europe, some of the recent projects in Finland, France and the United Kingdom have had very long construction times. According to the OECD/NEA, these delays were primarily due to the fact that the reactors were first-of-a-kind (FOAK) designs, supply-chain rebuilding, and to a lack of standardisation and harmonisation, fragmented or changing regulatory requirements, all of which increased both complexity, risk and construction time.
Other countries have shown that nuclear plants can be built faster when designs are standardised and replicated. South Korea’s programme, for example, has repeatedly delivered series-built reactors in timelines close to or below the global median.
Legislation, the regulatory framework and popular support have historically also played a role in the pace of development.
When countries build the same reactor design multiple times, average construction time drops significantly as learning effects accumulate. The global median construction time for nuclear power plants is around six-seven years from first concrete to grid connection, according to the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There are examples, including in Japan and South Korea, where individual nuclear reactors have been completed in as little as four years under favourable conditions.
Small Modular Reactors (SMR) are expected to reduce the time even further because large parts of the plant are produced as standardised modular factory components. In optimistic cases – with mature designs, established supply chains and streamlined licensing, this could bring the on-site
If a country like Denmark, starting without an existing nuclear programme, is to have nuclear power, it will take 10 to 15 years according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other experts. This is not only a question of construction time. Denmark also need to establish a national regulatory framework, as well as the establishment of independent authorities capable of handling safety assessments, development of emergency preparedness, approvals, supervision, and oversight of the entire nuclear power sector.
Myth 5
Nuclear waste is an unsolvable problem
It is incorrect to say that nuclear waste is an unsolvable problem that cannot be managed safely. All energy sources produce waste, and nuclear power is actually distinctive in that the volumes are small and tightly controlled, and that long-lived waste is managed under strict regulatory frameworks.
Today, there is a broad scientific consensus that deep geological repositories, like the ones Finland and Sweden are establishing, are a safe and responsible way to store spent fuel. This is stated by the EU’s independent research center (JRC) and reflected in EU law, notably the Nuclear Waste Directive (Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom), which requires Member States to develop national programmes for the safe, long-term management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, including deep geological disposal for high-level waste.
Much of the fuel can also be recycled. France already recycles a large part of their fuel, and new reactor designs under development, including designs from Danish companies, can reuse the spent fuel.
But it is important to emphasize that even if Denmark never builds nuclear power, it still need to establish a final repository. Denmark already has radioactive waste from healthcare, industry and the former experimental research reactors at Risø. The Danish Parliament decided
The independent research institution GEUS under the Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities has identified geologically suitable locations in Denmark that meet IAEA and the UN’s international standards for the disposal of radioactive waste. The conclusion is clear: high-level nuclear waste is a solved technical problem in the sense that internationally accepted, implementable solutions exist and are being deployed. The remaining challenges in many countries are primarily political, social and procedural – related to site selection, public acceptance, and long-term governance, rather than a lack of viable technology.