Il governo svizzero è pronto a revocare il divieto di nuove centrali nucleari
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/swiss-government-open-to-reversing-ban-on-new-nuclear-plants/87452319?utm_source=multiple&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=news_en&utm_content=o&utm_term=wpblock_highlighted-compact-news-carousel
di BezugssystemCH1903
16 commenti
Please, we need as much CO2 free energy as possible. Like the more the better. And we need lots of stable energy for base load.
Can also be used to convert to Hydrogen to fuel heavy duty and other vehicles where batteries are not an option.
Great to hear. Every bit helps, and if Switzerland were to become a net-exporter of power (all year round) all the better.
Finally. The cleanest and safest way (per kWh) of producing electricity.
Finally some common sense,
But from who do we get the uranium?
the little (nuclear) engine that could
So it means that voting is worthless.
People voted no and they still want to continue with nuclear.
Now we talking. That’s great news!
There is still a lot of potential in nuclear energy. The old Designs are crap and there are a lot of new ideas in the field.
We used the same reactor designs for decades, we could do so much better!
Yes they even have a company that wanted to transmute radioactive waste into energy and much shorter lived waste, making the long term worry about plutonium vanish
The oil and gas lobby has subverted a lot of green incentives to make them anti-nuclear. It’s astounding how effective they’ve been globally at suppressing one of the cleanest alternatives to oil and gas we have.
I am not against modern nuclear power plants, but I do not see it as realistic to have such a thing in our country in the future for the following reasons:
– It will certainly come to a referendum and then it will be 50/50. 50’000 signatures are very fast collected.
– Should it be located in Aargau again or in another canton?
– Thousands of objections/Einsprachen.
– With major federal projects, you can easily add another 50-100% to the construction time and cost. Maybe it would take us only 20-30 years.
– If it were to be accepted. The construction, operation and demolition would have to be defined from the beginning.
– If it is then built, objections again a lot and during construction time.
– Then there is the shortage of skilled labour at power plants too.
– Insurance companies would have to take over in the event of damage, which they now have problems with.
– Where do we buy the fissile fuel from? Leads to dependency.
– The final repository. If the location is ever clarified. Objections until the day of the saint.
Ok so why are we voting again?
A distraction to slow down the renewable Energy revolution.
[https://x.com/alex_avoigt/status/1823839844327678250](https://x.com/alex_avoigt/status/1823839844327678250)
And be aware, this is Primary energy… So actual electricity form nuclear is 3x lower.
[https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?l=de&c=CH&interval=year&share=solar_share](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?l=de&c=CH&interval=year&share=solar_share)
Solar is growing extremely fast now in Switzerland.
There is no chance there will be a new AKW.
It’s too expensive, no one will invest in it.
“Not in my backyard.”
*Aargau economy intensifies*
Reverse the ban, no problem. Just don’t subsidize it with billions.
Nuclear power plants’ biggest cost is its construction, and all recent western plants have mind boggling cost and time overruns. They take 15-20 years after a promised 5. Of course, governments paid for it. If private investors want to wager their own money on miraculous speed-ups, sure. But no bail-outs.