I nostri genitori stavano combattendo contro il Kaiseraugst AKW. Alla fine, dopo l’enorme pressione delle manifestazioni, l’edificio già costruito non fu terminato e il progetto si fermò. Poi il voto svizzero ha deciso di vietare le nuove centrali nucleari 15 anni fa, dopo il disastro di Fukushima, lasciando una ex cittadina di 7000 abitanti ancora oggi vuota, a causa della contaminazione radioattiva. Ora tocca a noi fermare presto tale stupidità politica. Dopo decenni di produzione di scorie radioattive, non esiste ancora una soluzione di stoccaggio permanente e sicura politicamente realizzata o accettata per le scorie nucleari (come immagazzinarle in modo sicuro per migliaia di anni?). La sicurezza è sempre relativa alla realtà distrofica dopo un grave incidente.
Inoltre, l’energia nucleare è un’elettricità molto costosa! Il Paese utilizzerà i soldi delle tasse per costruirli, gli alti prezzi dell’energia per gestirli, e il contribuente sarà l’assicurazione per coprire i costi se succede qualcosa di brutto. Lo paghiamo due o tre volte…
Combattiamo l’ottimismo e la disinformazione: " andrà tutto bene, ogni cosa funziona in modo sicuro e migliore ora, non preoccuparti, abbiamo scelto la migliore tecnologia" tutti solo desideri, purtroppo non realtà.
New nuclear power plants in Switzerland?
byu/domandi1244 inSwitzerland
di domandi1244
10 commenti
Same discussions since 80´s…
Nice propaganda. Keep continue going against science, energy sovereignty and the planet. Peace ✌️
Political stupidity was too stop that project and others in neighbor countries. Thanks to that stupidity we created an enormous dependence on Russian and now American gas. Europe enriched Putin and now we see the consequences. The contamination that the invasion of Ukraine is producing is massively larger than what safe Nuclear plants would produce in their lifetime. Now European countries and the EU itself are recognizing their mistakes.
What do you propose instead? Fossil fuels, whose pollution kills millions every single year? Renewables, which are far less space efficient and can’t yet handle all of our energy needs all of the time? 0 people died at Fukushima btw
Last time I checked, Axpo presently has zero interest in building new nuclear plants and has formulated a long list of stipulations to address all their risk management concerns if the Bundesrat really wants it to happen.
[https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/akw-bundesrat-will-neubauverbot-von-atomkraftwerken-kippen-656697147023](https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/akw-bundesrat-will-neubauverbot-von-atomkraftwerken-kippen-656697147023)
Nuclear energy is the most efficient and clean one, sorry. its sad that because people chose to cheap out on projects that the notion of nuclear powerplants is that they are unsafe. theyre not. theres also not as much waste as everybody is fearmongering, about 95% of the spent fuel can be recycled and is actively(france as example). People think just cause solarpanels and windturbines dont produce any waste while running (except microplastic polution on the windturbines, as indicated by the lack of vegitation at the base of our local windturbines) Its the mix that makes the most sense, a AKW that can handle the powerload during the night and green energy solutions being able to cover the peaks during the day. But tbh i think that it wouldnt pass in a vote anyway, so i wouldnt worry
Renewables are the solution, available everywhere. The federal study showed that more tha 30GW PV power, 30TWh / y are available just for well oriented existing roofs in Switzerland. Wind power on top. Science, technology and removing dependencies.
We have the mountains and the water to store a big portion as well as grid to fuel for overpower time.. etc. Just coming back on the same old technologies and dependency on uranium mining elsewhere in the world is not the solution. A major effort in renewables is necessary.
Last time I checked, less people have died from nuclear power plants than from installing solar panels.
The disasters were a long time ago. We learned and now it’s borderline impossible for a catastrophy to happen.
– Switzerland voted no to new NPPs in 2017 (i.e. 9 years ago, not 15)
– Switzerland has a company (Nagra) with clear plans to build a deep geological repository for nuclear waste. This is a proven solution already implemented in other countries.
– yes, nuclear is more expensive than other sources. However nuclear is reliable baselod power. The current market favors highly fluctuating renewable energies and makes baseload financially unviable, but baseload is absolutely necessary for grid stability and “non-sunny and non-windy” days (otherwise see blackout in Spain). A market that values baseload power is a central debate in energy economics
This post is filled with informations that are wrong. Source? I am a nuclear physicist.
See this article: [https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-calculate-global-health-impacts-fukushima-nuclear-disaster?utm_source=chatgpt.com](https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-calculate-global-health-impacts-fukushima-nuclear-disaster?utm_source=chatgpt.com) deaths/diseases linked to radiation are quite low and most of deaths came from the evacuation distress.
Don’t have time to go through all the points but I am definitely happy that CH has nuclear power plants and I think they will play a central role on decarbonization.