LibriumArcana.Games

BBC

The Swiss government has decided to phase out nuclear power, amid growing public hostility to the industry.

The government announced it would not replace the country's five ageing plants after they reached the end of their lifetimes between 2019 and 2034.

However, the authorities also said they would not decommission any prematurely.

Swiss activists rallied against nuclear power at the weekend. April's disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan has sparked debate in several countries.

"Existing nuclear power plants will be closed at the end of their operative life and not replaced by new nuclear power plants," the government said in a statement on Thursday.

Switzerland currently gets about 40% of its energy from nuclear power.

The Beznau 1 pressurised water reactor is the oldest in the world still in operation. It came on stream more than 40 years ago, in 1969.

The other four Swiss reactors all date from 1984 or earlier.

AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH IDIOTS!

When oil prices rise again and renewable sources fail to meet demand, then we'll see whether people will change their minds. It will probably be too late to avoid hardship by then.

There's some stuff where public opinion should hold no sway on policy. Such as anything to do with science.

The Cleric wrote:There's some stuff where public opinion should hold no sway on policy. Such as anything to do with science.

So... you're saying that government should have carte blanche to implement policy based on provisional knowledge of the universe without consulting the electorate? I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of removing any sort of democratic constraints on issues that have scientific components (I.E. most issues of consequence).

I think education is probably the way to go, but nuclear power advocates seem to be fighting a perpetually losing battle and it may be time to start looking at alternatives, ones that don't create such a visceral negative response and that aren't magnets for sensationalist media coverage. After a while I can't help but wonder if there's a sunk-cost fallacy being committed.

(This from someone who is generally pro-nuclear).

But what alternatives are there? AFAIK, renewables can't meet the demand. And anyway, I don't know that it's a true sunk cost fallacy, since continuing to press for nuclear doesn't have anywhere near the cost of failing to meet our energy needs.

Renewables have come a long way in the past few decades - Germany is now deriving a significant amount of power from wind and solar (~17% as of 2009), and many places in the US have superior sunshine/wind energy. However, I think the biggest gains will come through efficiency and a frank discussion about the energy-intensive lifestyles we lead (local farming vs industrial agriculture, local production vs international supply chains, etc).

I'm not yet convinced that nuclear is a dead letter - I support it generally, but the media over-reaction to Japan is convincing me that as long as there's a dollar to be made on sensationalist "atomz" coverage, then it's going to be a huge problem, and possibly one that can't be won. A great deal would have to change for nuclear to become attractive, down to the fundamental economics, and to be honest I'm not sure how much we want to relax the regulatory framework that exists.

Edit: It kind of depends what we're after: More, cheaper energy or sustainable energy/carbon reduction. My critique is based more around the latter rather than the former.

That sounds like a problem with sensationalist media in general rather than nuclear power per se. Education might be the best way to go, though that's a long-term solution.

It's also a problem that it's the media who are reporting the general public's opinions on the matter when they're the ones making a buck with their fear-mongering.


According to Gallup, the support for nuclear power was at 62% last year (link).

This year it's down to 57%, but the favorable votes are still more numerous (link).

OTOH, public opinion is pretty split about whether people want new plants or not, with the nays slightly in the lead.