Les Suissesses et les Suisses souhaitent la sécurité de l’approvisionnement énergétique, selon un sondage. Mais ils jugent tout aussi important un courant abordable et la neutralité climatique. La construction de nouvelles centrales nucléaires rassemble près de 56% d’avis favorables.
Trois Helvètes sur cinq (59%) soutiennent la mise en œuvre de la stratégie de la Confédération et considère la loi sur l’électricité comme un pas décisif pour l’avenir énergétique du pays, indique l’Association des entreprises électriques suisses (AES) mardi dans un communiqué.
Selon le sondage annuel de l’AES, réalisé par l’institut gfs.bern, la sécurité de l’approvisionnement reste la préoccupation principale de la population (45%). Viennent ensuite une électricité abordable (29%) et la neutralité carbone (26%).
La promotion des énergies renouvelables reste un élément central d’une politique énergétique crédible, mais pas à n’importe quel prix. Des mesures jugées consensuelles, comme la promotion de l’efficacité énergétique (94%) ou le développement de l’hydraulique (92%), sont plébiscitées.
Réfléchir au retour du nucléaire
Le soutien à l’énergie solaire est lui aussi particulièrement élevé: 94% des personnes interrogées souhaitent développer les installations photovoltaïques sur les toits. Près des deux tiers des sondés (63%) jugent aussi que le tournant énergétique est trop lent.
Pour la première fois, une majorité (56%) se dit favorable ou plutôt favorable à réfléchir à la construction de nouvelles centrales nucléaires. Mais les trois quarts des sondés (74%) estiment que la construction de telles installations ne constitue pas une solution aux problèmes d’approvisionnement à court terme.
Plus des deux tiers estiment par ailleurs qu’il faut utiliser toutes les technologies respectueuses de l’environnement, y compris le nucléaire, note l’AES. Mais l’initiative “Stop au blackout” ne recueille pour l’instant que 46% d’opinions favorables, contre 48% de refus.
That’s not something I expected to read. The anti-nuclear sentiment seemed to be quite strong to me.
Common sense still lives in Switzerland!
its mostly the svp wing that wants this
Well yeah it’s the safest, most efficient and cleanest option we currently have.
Haaaaa avec une énergie pas cher et décarbonée on aurait pu faire tellement de belle chose, mais non on a préférer se tirer une balle dans chaque pied a cause d’émotion qui n’avaient rien à faire dans ce débat… Et de toute façon même si on commençait maintenant ce serait pas avant 10-15 que les premières central seraient prête. Pour autant même qu’on soit en capacité d’en faire car avoir tout abandonné partout on a juste perdu nos connaissance dans la construction (CF voir la France qui galère à mort alors que c’est LE pays du nucléaire…)
Maintenant faire appel à la chine pour construire des réacteurs je suis pas certain que ce soit une bonne idée ou même qu’ils acceptent en réalité… Mais en attendant ils nous ont bien dépassé technologiquement la dessus.
Rein in die Kartoffeln, raus aus den Kartoffeln funktioniert bei langfristigen Planungen bekanntlich perfekt..
There’s a constant discourse about how this is the only solution not to go back to stone age. Funnily, good part of it comes from those so eager to defend “popular choice ” when they win a vote…
Wouldn’t Switzerland be THE country to make the most use of it’s waters and solar power sites?
Also, why not implement something safe and renewable? We have already enough problems with overly old nuclear reactors lol
EDIT: I was more gearing towards the waste that is complicated to dispose off, that’s what’s unsafe in the reactors. Any leak is also unsafe. Whoever thinks something else should go work for a nuclear power plant and see for themselves all the safety measures. I’m not saying there’s risks being taken, the safety measures are top notch, But it’s still nuclear energy and potential radioactive disaster of a distinctive area we are playing with.
Another EDIT: Switzerland would probably need 20 years to build a new nuclear plant. Where shall we do it?
Also, why not make every roof that is viable for it filled with PVs and connect the grid to a concrete (kinetic) battery? I mean, this is something way better than nuclear in my eyes:
Is surely depends what’s the goal. Best solution for carbon neutrality and energetic independance.
That’s nice. Hoping if things change, Switzerland will pick Korea or fingers crossed Mitsubishi/Hitachi for new units instead of EDF&Framatome or Westinghouse. Korea and Hitachi proved they can build fast and ± on budget. Mitsubishi has developed a reactor based on EDF designs without complexity of EPR (still under design but will probably be the first new reactor deployed in Japan, 2026 should bring more news)
Maybe Israel will send rockets to destroy it… Oh sorry wrong country sub. Israel is never going to attack white people anyway.
Im for it, still better than depending on bordering countries to supply our needs
Not surprised, there has been a lot of money poured into making nuclear popular again not least by all the AI companies who want cheap energy funded by the taxpayers to use in their AI datacenters.
The repopularisation of nuclear has all the hallmarks of astroturfing over it, and the extreme popularity on reddit with its closeness to the techbros is one of the explanations.
Then they should start an initiative if “a majority” thinks as they say…
I am not suprised. It’s constantly floated as the way out of the problem without admitting the evil greens were right all along. Meanwhile nobody is asked to produce an actual plan of how it would be financed and when it would actually come online (hint: the public would be asked for massive subsidies and it would come online way too late to be of any help with the energy transition).
The fact of the matter is, no energy company has any interest in building nuclear power plants, because they are not economically viable. It’s really only possible with immense monetary support from the government, government guarantees in the event of a disaster (so the energy company is not liable) and government guarantees for the storage of the nuclear waste. Also by the time a new power plant would come online (this would take 20 years at least) it would be forced to produce power when nobody wants it (when solar is producing an eccess amount) because the power plant can’t adjust it’s production to the actual demand. Most likely the public would then be asked to guarantee a certain price for the energy in order to make it viable for company.
that will be great
That so? Ok, then build a new one.
Good to see it. We need nuclear power as a reliable source until something better (hopefully fusion) comes along to rescue us from the pollution. I am strongly in favor of building new nuclear power plants, but also increasing renewables. What I do not want to see see is more gas or god forbid coal power.
Nuclear is the perfect energy source to couple with hydro and artificial lakes. It’s the constant power source that can be used at night to pump the water back up to the lakes, which can then be used throughout the day (mostly around noon and in the evening) to provide a crazy amount of clean energy.
Our country is ideal for this. Let’s use it!
didn‘t we vote no on this, why is it news again?
Isnt it just way too expensive?
That’s great! But I need it now! And not in front of my house.
Build well only. Money, time and quality. Small units can operate on spent fuel. Hi, France’s old stockpile.
23 comments
Les Suissesses et les Suisses souhaitent la sécurité de l’approvisionnement énergétique, selon un sondage. Mais ils jugent tout aussi important un courant abordable et la neutralité climatique. La construction de nouvelles centrales nucléaires rassemble près de 56% d’avis favorables.
Trois Helvètes sur cinq (59%) soutiennent la mise en œuvre de la stratégie de la Confédération et considère la loi sur l’électricité comme un pas décisif pour l’avenir énergétique du pays, indique l’Association des entreprises électriques suisses (AES) mardi dans un communiqué.
Selon le sondage annuel de l’AES, réalisé par l’institut gfs.bern, la sécurité de l’approvisionnement reste la préoccupation principale de la population (45%). Viennent ensuite une électricité abordable (29%) et la neutralité carbone (26%).
La promotion des énergies renouvelables reste un élément central d’une politique énergétique crédible, mais pas à n’importe quel prix. Des mesures jugées consensuelles, comme la promotion de l’efficacité énergétique (94%) ou le développement de l’hydraulique (92%), sont plébiscitées.
Réfléchir au retour du nucléaire
Le soutien à l’énergie solaire est lui aussi particulièrement élevé: 94% des personnes interrogées souhaitent développer les installations photovoltaïques sur les toits. Près des deux tiers des sondés (63%) jugent aussi que le tournant énergétique est trop lent.
Pour la première fois, une majorité (56%) se dit favorable ou plutôt favorable à réfléchir à la construction de nouvelles centrales nucléaires. Mais les trois quarts des sondés (74%) estiment que la construction de telles installations ne constitue pas une solution aux problèmes d’approvisionnement à court terme.
Plus des deux tiers estiment par ailleurs qu’il faut utiliser toutes les technologies respectueuses de l’environnement, y compris le nucléaire, note l’AES. Mais l’initiative “Stop au blackout” ne recueille pour l’instant que 46% d’opinions favorables, contre 48% de refus.
That’s not something I expected to read. The anti-nuclear sentiment seemed to be quite strong to me.
Common sense still lives in Switzerland!
its mostly the svp wing that wants this
Well yeah it’s the safest, most efficient and cleanest option we currently have.
Haaaaa avec une énergie pas cher et décarbonée on aurait pu faire tellement de belle chose, mais non on a préférer se tirer une balle dans chaque pied a cause d’émotion qui n’avaient rien à faire dans ce débat… Et de toute façon même si on commençait maintenant ce serait pas avant 10-15 que les premières central seraient prête. Pour autant même qu’on soit en capacité d’en faire car avoir tout abandonné partout on a juste perdu nos connaissance dans la construction (CF voir la France qui galère à mort alors que c’est LE pays du nucléaire…)
Maintenant faire appel à la chine pour construire des réacteurs je suis pas certain que ce soit une bonne idée ou même qu’ils acceptent en réalité… Mais en attendant ils nous ont bien dépassé technologiquement la dessus.
Rein in die Kartoffeln, raus aus den Kartoffeln funktioniert bei langfristigen Planungen bekanntlich perfekt..
There’s a constant discourse about how this is the only solution not to go back to stone age. Funnily, good part of it comes from those so eager to defend “popular choice ” when they win a vote…
Wouldn’t Switzerland be THE country to make the most use of it’s waters and solar power sites?
Also, why not implement something safe and renewable? We have already enough problems with overly old nuclear reactors lol
EDIT: I was more gearing towards the waste that is complicated to dispose off, that’s what’s unsafe in the reactors. Any leak is also unsafe. Whoever thinks something else should go work for a nuclear power plant and see for themselves all the safety measures. I’m not saying there’s risks being taken, the safety measures are top notch, But it’s still nuclear energy and potential radioactive disaster of a distinctive area we are playing with.
Another EDIT: Switzerland would probably need 20 years to build a new nuclear plant. Where shall we do it?
Also, why not make every roof that is viable for it filled with PVs and connect the grid to a concrete (kinetic) battery? I mean, this is something way better than nuclear in my eyes:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/energy-vault_revolutionary-idea-to-store-green-power-for-the-grid/45467684#:~:text=Stacking%20blocks%20of%20concrete%20with,customers%20from%20around%20the%20world.
Is surely depends what’s the goal. Best solution for carbon neutrality and energetic independance.
That’s nice. Hoping if things change, Switzerland will pick Korea or fingers crossed Mitsubishi/Hitachi for new units instead of EDF&Framatome or Westinghouse. Korea and Hitachi proved they can build fast and ± on budget. Mitsubishi has developed a reactor based on EDF designs without complexity of EPR (still under design but will probably be the first new reactor deployed in Japan, 2026 should bring more news)
Maybe Israel will send rockets to destroy it… Oh sorry wrong country sub. Israel is never going to attack white people anyway.
Im for it, still better than depending on bordering countries to supply our needs
Not surprised, there has been a lot of money poured into making nuclear popular again not least by all the AI companies who want cheap energy funded by the taxpayers to use in their AI datacenters.
The repopularisation of nuclear has all the hallmarks of astroturfing over it, and the extreme popularity on reddit with its closeness to the techbros is one of the explanations.
Then they should start an initiative if “a majority” thinks as they say…
I am not suprised. It’s constantly floated as the way out of the problem without admitting the evil greens were right all along. Meanwhile nobody is asked to produce an actual plan of how it would be financed and when it would actually come online (hint: the public would be asked for massive subsidies and it would come online way too late to be of any help with the energy transition).
The fact of the matter is, no energy company has any interest in building nuclear power plants, because they are not economically viable. It’s really only possible with immense monetary support from the government, government guarantees in the event of a disaster (so the energy company is not liable) and government guarantees for the storage of the nuclear waste. Also by the time a new power plant would come online (this would take 20 years at least) it would be forced to produce power when nobody wants it (when solar is producing an eccess amount) because the power plant can’t adjust it’s production to the actual demand. Most likely the public would then be asked to guarantee a certain price for the energy in order to make it viable for company.
that will be great
That so? Ok, then build a new one.
Good to see it. We need nuclear power as a reliable source until something better (hopefully fusion) comes along to rescue us from the pollution. I am strongly in favor of building new nuclear power plants, but also increasing renewables. What I do not want to see see is more gas or god forbid coal power.
Nuclear is the perfect energy source to couple with hydro and artificial lakes. It’s the constant power source that can be used at night to pump the water back up to the lakes, which can then be used throughout the day (mostly around noon and in the evening) to provide a crazy amount of clean energy.
Our country is ideal for this. Let’s use it!
didn‘t we vote no on this, why is it news again?
Isnt it just way too expensive?
That’s great! But I need it now! And not in front of my house.
Build well only. Money, time and quality. Small units can operate on spent fuel. Hi, France’s old stockpile.
Comments are closed.