-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Switzerland votes to phase out nuclear power
- Thread starter 1st Course
- Start date
Earthbound64
Banned
n/m, graph is for Japan.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
"Greener".
I hope they don't fuck it up.
Living in Switzerland I'm happy about this.
I'm aware of the progress fission power has made in the last decade, but I don't think we need it.
I am sure with investments into Solar and Wind (and increase in water) power we can go fully renewable in a few decades.
We are in the fortunate position with our mountains where we can use pumping stations to store power and compensate the fluctuation of solar energy.
I'm aware of the progress fission power has made in the last decade, but I don't think we need it.
I am sure with investments into Solar and Wind (and increase in water) power we can go fully renewable in a few decades.
We are in the fortunate position with our mountains where we can use pumping stations to store power and compensate the fluctuation of solar energy.
Maintenance
Member
I thought Hydro wasn't that clean at all? At least conventional dam hydro, and as far as I recall Switzerland can't use the ocean as an alternative.
Seth Enosh
Member
Nice graph showing the increased fossil fuel usage as a result of phasing out nuclear fission.
We should be investing heavily in nuclear fission R&D, safety, and plants to prevent climate change. Solar and wind just aren't ready and hydro/geothermal only works in certain countries that have the natural resources for it.
Edit: good point someone made about the Swiss mountains though. Massive amounts of pumped storage is one of the ways renewables can work to supply modern energy needs without fossil fuel or nuclear. Maybe this is good enough for Switzerland.
We should be investing heavily in nuclear fission R&D, safety, and plants to prevent climate change. Solar and wind just aren't ready and hydro/geothermal only works in certain countries that have the natural resources for it.
Edit: good point someone made about the Swiss mountains though. Massive amounts of pumped storage is one of the ways renewables can work to supply modern energy needs without fossil fuel or nuclear. Maybe this is good enough for Switzerland.
60% of the produced energy in switzerland comes from hydro.
30% nuclear
10% other renewables
They are going to have to ramp up a lot and hope there are no setbacks in whatever storage setup they choose.
Their nuclear plants will run as long as they meet safety standards but one will close in 2019.
https://qz.com/988592/switzerland-h...r-power-and-replace-it-with-renewable-energy/
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/energy-imports-net-percent-of-energy-use-wb-data.html
It will be interesting to see how well it goes.
Their nuclear plants will run as long as they meet safety standards but one will close in 2019.
https://qz.com/988592/switzerland-h...r-power-and-replace-it-with-renewable-energy/
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/energy-imports-net-percent-of-energy-use-wb-data.html
If those figures are correct currently Switzerland is importing half their power.
It will be interesting to see how well it goes.
Earthbound64
Banned
How in the fuck will they replace 33% of their power in two years. That seems like a lot, even for such a small country. I doubt they could do it with renewable energy, so I feel like coal and natural gas will take up a lot.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
RoadHazard
Gold Member
I only support moves like this if the lost energy production is completely replaced by renewable energy. Nuclear power has its risks, obviously, but coal is literally killing our planet.
Skellig Gra
Member
If they can actually achieve this then more power to them
John Kowalski
Banned
In a couple of months:
"CERN discovers plutonium-186"
"CERN discovers plutonium-186"
Nuclear isn't being replaced yet.
The Muehleberg nuclear plant will be decommissioned in 2019 due to high operating costs and like I said the others will continue to operate for now.
Presumably short term they will import more power and long term other renewable energy supplies take up the slack..
Earthstrike
Member
We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is important insofar as it has something other power sources don't. Political viability due to its cheaper price. People don't want to pay a premium for technologies that aren't as efficient yet. Nuclear should be used as a transitional form of power generation until fusion gets off the ground. We need to reduce greenhouse gases, and we need to accept that political stability in power generation is a component of it.
Being a leftist, I'm sad to say I have to go with the political right on this one.
It will not work for several reasons.
1. Everybody wants solar and wind plants, but absolutely nobody wants them near where they live. They will be kicking and screaming their way to the federal court. Whoever thinks Switzerland will put wind energy on mountaintops is crazy.
2. With a large transition going on towards electric mobility, energy consumption will definitely not fall - SP and co are completely misjudging this.
3. We already import a huge part of our energy from Germany and France, the former of which will struggle to provide energy for themselves in 5-10 years. Until then, we'll be importing dirty coal energy.
4. The campaign was based on groundless optimism and wishful thinking. Before the referendum, the campaigners said there would be no gas power plants to make up for the loss of power. Today, just one day after the referendum, all the newspapers have them quoted as "There will absolutely be gas power plants, we'll probably have to build new ones, but we _hope_ we can switch someday".
Ok, so much for green.
A close friend of mine studies renewable energy studies,my brother is working on his PhD in nuclear scjences. Both agreed that politicians and the general public have no idea what they are talking about. This referendum was a catastrophe. To everybody who says we can always import more energy - no, we can't. When Leibstadt and Beznau were off-grid, don't quote me on the year but I think it was Winter 2015/16, we apparently came close to a complete shutdown of the entire northern energy grid. In winter. That is just absolutely terrifying.
It will not work for several reasons.
1. Everybody wants solar and wind plants, but absolutely nobody wants them near where they live. They will be kicking and screaming their way to the federal court. Whoever thinks Switzerland will put wind energy on mountaintops is crazy.
2. With a large transition going on towards electric mobility, energy consumption will definitely not fall - SP and co are completely misjudging this.
3. We already import a huge part of our energy from Germany and France, the former of which will struggle to provide energy for themselves in 5-10 years. Until then, we'll be importing dirty coal energy.
4. The campaign was based on groundless optimism and wishful thinking. Before the referendum, the campaigners said there would be no gas power plants to make up for the loss of power. Today, just one day after the referendum, all the newspapers have them quoted as "There will absolutely be gas power plants, we'll probably have to build new ones, but we _hope_ we can switch someday".
Ok, so much for green.
A close friend of mine studies renewable energy studies,my brother is working on his PhD in nuclear scjences. Both agreed that politicians and the general public have no idea what they are talking about. This referendum was a catastrophe. To everybody who says we can always import more energy - no, we can't. When Leibstadt and Beznau were off-grid, don't quote me on the year but I think it was Winter 2015/16, we apparently came close to a complete shutdown of the entire northern energy grid. In winter. That is just absolutely terrifying.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Humans continue to make irrational decisions, news at 11.
While i agree much of the referendum is built on wishful thinking i disagree that the referendum was a catastrophe. This result gives the political capital to at least attempt some compromises to push renewable in more places and put in place infrastructure necessary for that (and these improvements to the grid are a good thing regardless of the source of energy).
However the things that were decided today are not set in stone - it's a plan for 2050 after all. If we have to, we will build the non-renewable powerplants necessary. It'll be a major political failure for the government and the left, and maybe politicians will finally wake up to the fact that energy consumption will never ever fall in a country that grows as quickly as Switzerland, but we'll vote again and make the adjustments that are necessary.
Switzerland doesn't have a huge industry tied to non renewable energy like Germany or France. We can afford to at least attempt the switch.
radios shipping overview
Member
You think if there's a high-profile fossil fuel accident, people will flock away from it the way they have from nuclear?
Oh
wait
maybe not
oh well.
Nuclear power is scary because people look at radiation as being like a contagion. Gas and oil accidents kill a lot more people and wildlife, but nobody seems particularly worried that they'll be next.
Oh
wait
maybe not
oh well.
Nuclear power is scary because people look at radiation as being like a contagion. Gas and oil accidents kill a lot more people and wildlife, but nobody seems particularly worried that they'll be next.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
No this is idiotic and you need to educated yourself on nuclear power.
SecretMoblin
Member
I agree with much of the skepticism and that campaigns centered around moving from nuclear to renewables for "green" reasons are usually based around junk science and unwarranted fearmongering, but I also think that political will for development in that direction is generally a good thing. Let's hope the Swiss are willing to make some tough decisions about how/where/when to build their infrastructure and import foreign energy.
I'm high on nuclear but our current powerplants are starting to get old in the tooth and need to be replaced anyway, sooner or later.
Building a new one would be a major headache even if the vote ended up being no. It's not happening anytime soon, if it happens at all.
I see where you're coming from and I understand the hope - personally, I'm in favor of renewables as well.
Problem is, people like Leuthard are using this wave to ride it into their personal successes. If this fails, and I believe it will, renewables will become the posterchild of SVP energy politics - pointing their fingers at them and saying "see, it failed". The image will be ruined. Leuthard will be long retired by then, nowhere around to take the blame.
I don't appreciate the insult, but I agree with the science-argument.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Silly. Green Parties being anti-nuclear makes me SMH.
It's a big plan that was set in motion, I wasn't quite in favor of it, I think modern nuclear is one of the best sources of energy, but it had some interesting elements to it.
First objective was to lower energy consumption for households by banning non-efficient appliances from being imported. this will result in higher prices for appliances but with long term benefits for consumption, obviously. Same applies to several aspects of daily household items, including central heating for buildings and so on. There will be high costs that will have to be paid for by us, that's going to bite.
Second objective was promoting renewable energies by increasing investments in solar, wind and hydro. Slowly replacing nuclear (by 2050 at the latest). We'll see how this goes, it's a slow process towards 2035 first and then 2050. I think we'll see some struggle there, especially with wind, nobody wants those turbines in the valleys, like in Wallis.
Third objective was to reduce pollution obviously, that includes cars and industries, and again, cars with too high emissions will be banned for imports, slowly phased out through taxes, and so on.
Complex and multi-layered vote that has lots of positive thoughts behind it but the outcome might be different...
First objective was to lower energy consumption for households by banning non-efficient appliances from being imported. this will result in higher prices for appliances but with long term benefits for consumption, obviously. Same applies to several aspects of daily household items, including central heating for buildings and so on. There will be high costs that will have to be paid for by us, that's going to bite.
Second objective was promoting renewable energies by increasing investments in solar, wind and hydro. Slowly replacing nuclear (by 2050 at the latest). We'll see how this goes, it's a slow process towards 2035 first and then 2050. I think we'll see some struggle there, especially with wind, nobody wants those turbines in the valleys, like in Wallis.
Third objective was to reduce pollution obviously, that includes cars and industries, and again, cars with too high emissions will be banned for imports, slowly phased out through taxes, and so on.
Complex and multi-layered vote that has lots of positive thoughts behind it but the outcome might be different...
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Fusion reactors aren't ready for prime time yet.
Gen III+ reactors aren't as easy to build as made out to be. Westinghouse House literally went bankrupt over this exact thing.
MSR reactors are great in theory, but they aren't primetime ready. You aren't gonna get an MSR reactor up and running before 2025, and it's probably more like 2030.
I'm not against nuclear in theory, but Switzerland seems to have waited too long. They needed to start on replacing reactors BEFORE they got aging due to the time it takes to build new ones.
The real question that has to be answered not just in Switzerland but around the globe is do we start building more Gen III+ reactors now with a slow transition to Gen IV or do we bank on renewables catching up to nuclear in the next decade considering how long it takes to spin up a nuclear power plant so to speak.
ClosingADoor
Member
If they can manage that it will 100% guaranteed be replaced by solar, hydro or wind, sure. If not, we once again have a situation where coal and gas will need to step in for this stuff, either imported from other countries or in their own plants.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
It is one thing avoid building new nuclear in favor of other alternatives but accelerating the phase out of clean baseload makes little sense. The two big power plants are less than 40 years old (from operation) and still have plenty of life left in them. It makes more sense to slowly build up Switzerland's renewables to meet new demand and only commit to converting that 2+ GW of nuclear to renewables when the plants need to shut down. That way Switzerland's utilities can learn how to deploy intermittent renewable and storage with smaller projects, also they can ride the declining cost curves for renewables and storage by putting off purchasing till necessary.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
that's the output of over 600 hydropower plants versus the output of 4 old nuclear plants, for what it's worth
paperboywriter
Member
i dont understand, what if something goes wrong in a nuclear plant in europe? what has changed since fukushima? Im actually curious. I mean newer reactors might be safe and all, but what about the ones 30 years old or older?
I'm not particularly worried about being able to point fingers if the strategy fails. If we can't sustain the energy grid with only renewables, it just means that we can't.
We'll get the choice between gas or nuclear. That's going to be an interesting debate.
By 2050 even the newer powerplants will be 70 years old. I'd say 30 years is a pretty big window to make the switch. If we can't make it work in that timeframe, i don't think the complete switch will ever happen.
Muffin1611
Banned
I guess you can tell me the solution to the storing of nuclear waste then. Also why a country should pour fucktons of money into plants that take years to be built, when renewables are getting ever cheaper.
Just shutting off nuclear plants is senseless, but I don't see the problem with slowly phasing them out as renewables are taking their place.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
If the 2050 date is when the phase-out would occur then that would be more than reasonable. Though it reads like 2050 is the target date for the energy strategy and that there is no fixed date on the nuclear phase-out. Given how the strategy mentions Fukushima I would expect the phase-out of nuclear to occur well before the two big plants hit 50.
I don't mean it as an insult, I am just genuinely disgusted in the general population (of the world) when it comes to this issue. People are ignorant and foolish. I'm not surprised by the results and I don't think people really evaluate things rationally when it comes to nuclear.
No matter what arguments either campaign may have made. It will always be literally THERMONUCLEAR HOLOCAUST/CHERNOBYL/FUKUSHIMA against happiness and light. You can't credibly argue the public at large does not evaluate this in any other way.
To be fair to the Swiss their energy decisions make absolutely zero difference and they have no local specialisation in plant design and construction. This decision in particular almost certainly guarantees they will be importing electricity from France down the line at higher and higher levels because renewables will never keep up with energy demand.
The nuclear industry being in the state it's in is a political issue more than anything. Personally I think it is imperative that all nuclear plants should be government owned and government run. This will eliminate the liabilities to a very large extent, which are paper costs that require insurance.
DEMO is a while away and I'm skeptical it will make the 2040 date. MSR's being ready for primetime have the same issue that DEMO will have - materials science - can the inner walls cope with the neutron flux in an economical manner. This is not a question of physics, it's a question of engineering, as was the mantra in the Manhattan Project, that means this problem is a trivial undertaking in the grand scheme of things.
Renewables will never be able to meet energy demand. It's basic physics. They will never achieve the same power output and will require far more space. Nuclear is the future, it'll have to be accepted but the political will needs to be there to do it.
The waste problem is also one of the most overblown issues out there, Gen IV reactors will literally eat the waste. The amount of waste produced is also miniscule. Nuclear is a complicated subject with many different facets but there is zero doubt that it is the only solution to climate change and world energy demand.
The calculation is simple - as the developing world matures economically they will consume orders of magnitude more energy than they do today. The only source capable of meeting that demand and sustaining future growth is nuclear and it will do it being emission free. Renewables are not going to cut it because energy consumption is going up not down.
MacGurcules
Member
You use it to make more electricity. Modern breeder reactors can run on "waste" from older generation power plants. The waste they eventually do generate is less by orders of magnitude and after generating power for a decade, has a custodial storage life of like a hundred years.
Waste that we have to store for 500'000 years makes nobody smile usually. But I guess you have a solution for that.
When are the Gen IV reactors ready? 2040, 2050? By then more than half of the worlds energy is already produced with solar.
Similar threads
- Locked