It's hard to see how non-dispatchable generation like nuclear can be competitive in Northern European markets dominated by intermittent wind power. So much wind capacity has already been built in Denmark that it sometimes meets 100% of electricity demand. Britain will be there soon, certainly long before substantial numbers of new nuclear reactors could conceivably be built.

I suspect the UK will only build the nuclear capacity required to keep the industry around on national security grounds.

▲

mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nuclear power is dispatchable, unlike renewables.

Giving a preference to intermittent renewables is not a law of nature, but a rule that is irrational and needs to be removed.

Denmark is just now hitting problems with their wind strategy, and of course dependent on being a transit land between large producers and consumers. And currently looking at nuclear. As is Norway.

One of the reason is that intermittent renewables are pro-cyclical, that is once they reach a certain level of saturation, they cannibalize each other even more than they cannibalize steady suppliers.

The current plan is to quadruple nuclear power in the UK.

▲

laurencerowe 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Nuclear power is dispatchable, unlike renewables.

While you can turn nuclear up and down a little bit the fuel costs are negligible so it costs the same to generate 80% or 100% of rated output. It's done in France because nuclear makes up so much of their generation capacity they have no other option.

> Giving a preference to intermittent renewables is not a law of nature, but a rule that is irrational and needs to be removed.

I think carbon-free generation options should be considered dispassionately with a focus on minimising cost and reducing CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. But there is path dependence at this point. The wind generation capacity will already have been built out before many more nuclear plants come online. I think this will make the economics of expanding nuclear power generation unattractive because we will already have made the commitments to buy the wind generation and we will instead look for the lowest priced options to fill the gaps.

> Denmark is just now hitting problems with their wind strategy, and of course dependent on being a transit land between large producers and consumers. And currently looking at nuclear. As is Norway. > > One of the reason is that intermittent renewables are pro-cyclical, that is once they reach a certain level of saturation, they cannibalize each other even more than they cannibalize steady suppliers.

The fast decreasing cost of batteries will help smooth out fluctuations in wind generation across a day or two. That should reduce the level of cannibalisation between wind projects substantially, though does not remove the need for backup power for longer periods of little wind.

I suspect the proposed SMR projects in Norway and Denmark will depend on whether anyone is able to get SMR build costs down sufficiently to make them attractive. It certainly makes no sense to ban them outright.

> The current plan is to quadruple nuclear power in the UK.

That was the 2050 target from the last government. In terms of actual commitments the only planned plant after Hinkley C is currently Sizewell C. At the same time 4 of our 5 remaining nuclear plants will be decommissioned by early 2030. I think the target is highly unlikely to be met.

There is a £2.5 billion investment in SMRs (if you can call reactors around a 1/3rd the size of existing nuclear power plants small...) but will they really have reduced costs?

	▲	mpweiher 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> [UK quadrupling target] That was the 2050 target from the last government. Yes. The only criticism the new labor government had of the previous government's nuclear policy was them not getting enough done: "Starmer hits out at Tories’ ‘shambolic’ failure to open nuclear power plants" https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/starmer-targets-to... > In terms of actual commitments the only planned plant after Hinkley C is currently Sizewell C. Well sure, they only got those commitments through this summer. At around the same time as they were getting the commitments for Sizewell-C (and pre-construction work has commenced), they also designated the next site. And, yes, they also selected the winner of the SMR competition. Here current statements from the government: "Starmer pledges to ‘build, baby, build’ as green groups criticise nuclear plans" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/06/starmer-...

▲

apatheticonion 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Keep in mind the energy vs electricity "gochya".

Australia, for instance, powers 40% of its electricity with renewables.

However, electricity makes up ~20% of _total_ energy consumption which means renewables made up 9% of _total_ energy production.

As the electrification of transport, industry, manufacturing, etc proceeds, the demand for electricity will increase (in the case of Australia, we need to 5x our electricity production).

Ironically, legislators are disincentivized from stimulating electrification as getting to 100% renewable electricity production is easier when electricity is only 20% of our energy usage.

▲

laurencerowe 3 days ago | parent [-]

Energy consumption does not equal useful work though. Much of that non-electrical energy consumption is wasted, e.g. car engines are only about 30% efficient and heat pumps can provide 3-5x the amount of warmth compared to the electrical input required to run. So we’re probably looking at around a 2x increase in electricity consumption rather than 5x.

	▲	locallost 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Add to it the fact that things get more and more efficient, it's questionable if even a 2x increase is in the cards. The EU has added 10 million EVs in the last decade and total electricity consumption hasn't gone up at all. Norway's car sales are majority EV since around five years and over 90% now, and total consumption of electricity went up around 10%. It could be, for the EU not Norway at least, that there was a consumption uptick but it's hidden because people charge their cars with their own solar panels. But even this is indicative of how the grid will work in the future.

▲

llsf 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Note that Denmark would have to keep deploying more wind capacity as the country would need more electricity over time (electrification of the transportation, heat, industry, etc.). So, even if some days wind capacity does meets 100% of the electricity demand nowadays, we would need add more capacity.