Slashdot Mirror
Switzerland Votes To Abandon Nuclear Power In Favor of Renewables (bbc.com)
Slashdot reader bsolar writes: Swiss voters approved a new energy strategy proposed by the government. Under this new policy no new nuclear power plant will be built and the five existing nuclear power plants will continue operating and will be shut down at the end of their operating life (expected to last about 20-30 years). The plan is to offset the missing nuclear energy production by renewables and lower energy consumption.
Though one-third of the country's power comes from nuclear energy, the BBC reports that more than 58% of the voters "backed the move towards greener power sources." One Swiss news site notes that "regions where the country's five nuclear reactors are situated rejected the reform with clear majorities."
Though one-third of the country's power comes from nuclear energy, the BBC reports that more than 58% of the voters "backed the move towards greener power sources." One Swiss news site notes that "regions where the country's five nuclear reactors are situated rejected the reform with clear majorities."
That's the plain and simple truth. Nuclear Fission only looks like it works if it is cross-funded by obscene truckloads of taxpayers money and nobody looks too hard at centralized power cartels (funded by said taxpayers money), reactor runtimes and maintenance costs (also paid by taxpayers mones). Factor in waste handling, storage and the risks of nuclear disasters and the balance sheet goes really deep-red.
The numbers don't add up and the whole concept simply doesn't work. Even the conservatives in Germany have noticed this. Replenishing Plant Wackersdorf - a multi-billion dollar project for the treatment and replenishing of nuclear waste - wasn't closed down by left-wing hippie protesters raising a stink of the better part of a decade, it was closed down by southern Germany state officials doing the math. Some backroom clerk adding up the numbers and seeing in awe and amazement that it wouldn't work, even with the best predictions. Same goes for the most advanced fast breeder at Kalkar - a building estimated more expensive than the Pyramids of Gizeh, inflation factored in.
Now Germany is moving out of nuclear alltogether and for once we're actually ahead of schedule - even with all the fuss about the new powerlines crossing the republic. AFAI understand we've simply decided to front a few extra billion and move those underground, so nobody can complain of them blocking their view. We crossed the 80% renewables a few weeks ago. If Germany can do this - really not a country known for it's sunny days - the rest of the world can do it too.
People have to see the light: Nuclear Fission as we know it is a 60ies techno-romatic pipe-dream. And a dangerous one at that, with a 200 000 year waste problem attached.
IMHO the world should move to decommission classic nuclear fission ASAP. I'm glad the swiss voted in favor of this. I personally don't want to many chernobyls and fukushimas happening before the world finally catches on.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Proof that democracy doesn't always work. People are morons. There are no "greener sources" than nuclear if you want a decent electricity grid with a reliable base load. All that will happen is what's happened elsewhere - wind, solar, and coal/gas to cover the inevitable large shortfalls as they fluctuate like hell (not to mention their massively lower energy density).
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
While I agree with a stop to build new ones, it's insane to turn off the ones that are still running reliably. Because whether you turn them off now or at their end of life, the building along with everything inside is radioactive waste you have to take care of. The damage is already done, the nuclear waste already created. You can as well reap the few benefits you gain out of it before throwing it away.
Or rather, driving it around Europe hoping to find some place to stow it. Maybe Moldova will allow you to dump it there if you throw enough money at them, they sure need it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
BS. German built -4 new coal power stations. In other words, they built some new ones but closed more older ones.
Anyway, you are pre-judging their effort. They are due to finish around 2024, when the last nuclear reactors are decommissioned. Until then it's still the transition phase and not indicative of the final outcome. Wait until the full renewable and storage capacity is there, and then compare some temporarily elevated CO2 emissions to permanently lower ones.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
wind and solar energy are cheaper than other sources of energy (even without subsisdies),
If this is true why is the electricity price in green renewables Germany twice as high as their neighbour France which relies on nuclear power for nearly all of its electricity generation?
It's really weird since Germany actually generates most of its electricity from brown coal and Russian gas which is dirt-cheap.
The headline lied again. The proposition to abandon nuclear power following German policy was voted on last last November, and it went down hard. The current proposition was to not build any new reactors after the current generation ages out after about 2030. The general attitude (I have relatives there) is that given such a comfortably far off year, why not make a symbolic gesture of support for hoping the German program will eventually produce enough clean energy to run the economy?
Before 1970, Switzerland's power mix was 90% hydro; because of nuclear, that fraction has dropped to 56% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Switzerland). So whereas Germany has to produce its baseload by opening new coal plants, Switzerland has all that hydro to fall back on.
Switzerland values the beauty of its countryside, which is exactly why it started building nuclear plants in the lowland rather than new mountain dams in the first place. Switzerland doesn't have any expense of offshore mudflats, and there is no sentiment for festooning the Alps with wind turbines. My personal guess is that by 2030 Switzerland's new renewable energy will be entirely in the form of solar roofing, and that the aged-out nukes will be replaced by new factory-built modular reactors from China.
Production was only 85% momentarily, on a Sunday morning with exceptionally low demand and high wind conditions. Meanwhile, it was also shown how wind and solar production drops to below 4% quite often still. The problem is many talk about 'renewables' and fail to mention that it include burning biomass and hydro, but the only sources that can be added with any significance are the intermittent wind and solar sources. Wind and Solar only generated about 20% of German power in 2016, and they are already running into limits of what the grid can handle without significantly larger investments in transmission systems than what they've already had to do to get to this point.
Pretty much says it all.
Uh ... no. That paragraph says nothing meaningful. Blaming everything on a vast media conspiracy is the second refuge of the scoundrel. The linked article is informative, but it would have been better without the persecution theory.