It’ll be interesting to see how this works out. The existing plants are in the process of being decommissioned. It might also be possible to export some energy to the neighbouring countries if a large enough capacity is installed, assuming it gets the green light.
But, where will the waste go?
The main thing that annoys me with this initiative is that they use an issue (the lack of electricity this winter) that has nothing to do with their proposition (new nuclear power plants in 2035 at best, most like 2040 or 2050), a subject on which the population already has decided 5 years ago. They are as annoying as the GSSA with their « no plane » shit. As much as I disliked having planes, we voted, it’s done. Accept it and move on. Grow up.
We have better things to do than vote on the exact same subject every year…
Because every predicted cost of every nuclear power plante has been an entire correct price prediction….
That’s great that we are having this debate. It only comes about fifteen years too late.
I’m still in favor, but let’s not act like this is anywhere close to a solution to our short term problems.
I agree with the spirit of the initiative but the wording they proposed for the constitutional amendment isn’t great. Hopefully we can get something that defines “respect for the climate” a little more explicitly.
It will be a stranded asset before we even vote about this.
Had a couple of discussions with “Energie Club” people. They are in complete denial of reality.
Great so we can keep our energy reliance on Russia (46% off nuclear fuel comes from russia)
/s
I’m fine with keeping these plants going, and I wasn’t really in favor of the shutdown in the first place.
I think the decision to keep them going needs to be part of a larger and longer term strategy on energy, with a big focus on renewables and incentives to decentralize things like solar onto every domestic rooftop. I don’t like policy being “let’s hope the Russians and Middle East are stable this year” or asking nicely if the Germans are still burning coal. To me, energy independence, or as close to it as possible, is an important part of neutrality. The positive environmental impacts as well make this change in mindset really important, even if only to provide an example and path to others with larger ecological impact.
Link to actual petition?
[deleted]
What will a petition accomplish? An initiative is needed.
No, means NO !
I think everything should be up to debate.
But, I don’t see a future for fission reactors, even if the actual technology is much better than the power plants we have in Switzerland.
First, we do have a problem with nuclear waste, we did not manage to get a storage solution, and we have discussed this for several decades. Nobody wants it near their home, and I understand this.
Second, the idea to store toxic waste securely for several thousand years is… just bonkers. Transmutation to get rid of nuclear waste at scale is still a concept.
Third, no one is going to build a nuclear reactor without guaranteed prices which are already outperformed by renewables, and it is not going to look better for nuclear power in the future.
Fourth, which many people miss, uranium is not abundant and the next generation of fission reactors is maybe the last one. (The world association of nuclear operators thinks it is going to be 80 years.)
And lastly, even if we would decide to build new fission reactors, they would be ready by 2037, including the mandatory popular vote. And this is an optimistic timeframe, we are probably talking around 2040.
Which means, the impact will be too late to reduce carbon dioxide. I think it is more probable that we will at least partially solve energy storage with emerging technologies like natrium based batteries or more clever heat accumulators by then.
What Switzerland should do, in my opinion, is to more cleverly incentivise and de-incentivise to reduce energy consumption, CO2 output or ecological damage. Examples to incentivise are to subsidize renovation and isolation of older buildings and investments in photovoltaics, solar heat and heat pumps.
Examples do de-incentivize could be individual traffic, harsher laws for product warranty and standby power consumption. And while we’re at it, stop subsidizing airlines with cheap kerosene. Polluting the planet with unnecessary flights should not be incentivised.
13 comments
It’ll be interesting to see how this works out. The existing plants are in the process of being decommissioned. It might also be possible to export some energy to the neighbouring countries if a large enough capacity is installed, assuming it gets the green light.
But, where will the waste go?
The main thing that annoys me with this initiative is that they use an issue (the lack of electricity this winter) that has nothing to do with their proposition (new nuclear power plants in 2035 at best, most like 2040 or 2050), a subject on which the population already has decided 5 years ago. They are as annoying as the GSSA with their « no plane » shit. As much as I disliked having planes, we voted, it’s done. Accept it and move on. Grow up.
We have better things to do than vote on the exact same subject every year…
Because every predicted cost of every nuclear power plante has been an entire correct price prediction….
That’s great that we are having this debate. It only comes about fifteen years too late.
I’m still in favor, but let’s not act like this is anywhere close to a solution to our short term problems.
I agree with the spirit of the initiative but the wording they proposed for the constitutional amendment isn’t great. Hopefully we can get something that defines “respect for the climate” a little more explicitly.
It will be a stranded asset before we even vote about this.
Had a couple of discussions with “Energie Club” people. They are in complete denial of reality.
Great so we can keep our energy reliance on Russia (46% off nuclear fuel comes from russia)
/s
I’m fine with keeping these plants going, and I wasn’t really in favor of the shutdown in the first place.
I think the decision to keep them going needs to be part of a larger and longer term strategy on energy, with a big focus on renewables and incentives to decentralize things like solar onto every domestic rooftop. I don’t like policy being “let’s hope the Russians and Middle East are stable this year” or asking nicely if the Germans are still burning coal. To me, energy independence, or as close to it as possible, is an important part of neutrality. The positive environmental impacts as well make this change in mindset really important, even if only to provide an example and path to others with larger ecological impact.
Link to actual petition?
[deleted]
What will a petition accomplish? An initiative is needed.
No, means NO !
I think everything should be up to debate.
But, I don’t see a future for fission reactors, even if the actual technology is much better than the power plants we have in Switzerland.
First, we do have a problem with nuclear waste, we did not manage to get a storage solution, and we have discussed this for several decades. Nobody wants it near their home, and I understand this.
Second, the idea to store toxic waste securely for several thousand years is… just bonkers. Transmutation to get rid of nuclear waste at scale is still a concept.
Third, no one is going to build a nuclear reactor without guaranteed prices which are already outperformed by renewables, and it is not going to look better for nuclear power in the future.
Fourth, which many people miss, uranium is not abundant and the next generation of fission reactors is maybe the last one. (The world association of nuclear operators thinks it is going to be 80 years.)
And lastly, even if we would decide to build new fission reactors, they would be ready by 2037, including the mandatory popular vote. And this is an optimistic timeframe, we are probably talking around 2040.
Which means, the impact will be too late to reduce carbon dioxide. I think it is more probable that we will at least partially solve energy storage with emerging technologies like natrium based batteries or more clever heat accumulators by then.
What Switzerland should do, in my opinion, is to more cleverly incentivise and de-incentivise to reduce energy consumption, CO2 output or ecological damage. Examples to incentivise are to subsidize renovation and isolation of older buildings and investments in photovoltaics, solar heat and heat pumps.
Examples do de-incentivize could be individual traffic, harsher laws for product warranty and standby power consumption. And while we’re at it, stop subsidizing airlines with cheap kerosene. Polluting the planet with unnecessary flights should not be incentivised.