As Denmark reconsiders its four-decade-old nuclear ban, the debate took a dramatic local turn this week when Jens-Kristian Lütken, Employment and Integration Mayor of Copenhagen for the Venstre party, publicly proposed building a nuclear reactor just 2.5 kilometers from the city center.
In an interview with Berlingske, Lütken named Refshaleøen, a former industrial area near Indre By, as a logical candidate for hosting a future nuclear power plant:
“We already have a power plant and high-voltage lines there. It would make sense,” he stated.
A local twist to the national nuclear debate
Lütken’s comments come amid rising calls from Venstre and Moderaterne to repeal the 1985 nuclear planning restriction, which effectively blocks nuclear energy from being included in Danish energy strategies. While the national conversation has largely focused on legal and technological barriers, the Copenhagen mayor’s intervention places the issue squarely in an urban and symbolic context.
His suggestion was followed by a call for Copenhagen’s Lord Mayor Lars Weiss (Socialdemokratiet) to write to Climate and Energy Minister Lars Aagaard in support of removing the nuclear ban.
Political backlash and scepticism
The proposal met with immediate pushback. Weiss quickly distanced himself from the idea, stating that it is hard to imagine placing a nuclear reactor within Copenhagen’s city limits.
This reflects broader resistance from Socialdemokratiet, which remains opposed to nuclear energy even as it agrees to conduct a national analysis of future nuclear technologies, such as SMRs (Small Modular Reactors).
Copenhagen’s unique energy geography
Refshaleøen is no stranger to energy infrastructure. It currently hosts facilities connected to Copenhagen’s Amager Power Station (Amagerværket) and lies within the urban energy grid. Supporters argue that this pre-existing framework could make it a technically viable location for next-generation nuclear experiments.
Still, placing a nuclear facility near Rådhuspladsen or Kongens Nytorv raises questions about public safety, urban planning, and residential acceptance, especially in a city internationally known for its green energy leadership.
Symbolism and strategy
Whether or not Lütken’s suggestion is technically or politically feasible, it serves to highlight a key question in Denmark’s emerging energy discourse: Is nuclear energy truly incompatible with urban life, or is that perception a relic of the past?
His provocative suggestion may be less about practical implementation and more about breaking the nuclear taboo in a nation where nuclear power has long been absent from serious consideration.
As Denmark awaits the outcome of the government’s analysis on nuclear technologies, Lütken’s comments ensure that Copenhagen will remain at the center of this evolving and contentious debate.
