Skip to main content

What About Switzerland?

By

cuckooSwitzerland will always be immortalized by a famous speech written by Graham Greene* and spoken by Orson Welles’ Harry Lime in the movie The Third Man:

In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

Remember that this is spoken by a deeply cynical villain - it’s a pretty cynical view of world history – and one can allow the capper of the cuckoo clock despite it not being created in Switzerland but Bavaria. You get the point.

But just because Harry Lime didn’t believe in anything doesn’t mean the Swiss don’t. The government there announced at about the same time that Germany did, in 2011 after the Fukushima Daiichi accident, that it would close its five reactors. Germany was responding to strong public opinion, but the Swiss did not wait to gauge attitudes, assuming that this was a desired outcome. But it might not be:

Some 64% of respondents said that they considered Switzerland's five existing reactors essential in meeting the country's electricity demand. This is around the average level reported since the first poll in 2001, but marks a 3% increase from 2012.

This is a Datascope poll conducted for the Swiss version of NEI (actually, more like the nuclear segment of the Edison Electric Institute), called, naturally enough, swissnuclear, so consider that when reading these numbers. Just because the poll comes from an interested party doesn’t automatically disqualify it and the Swiss people have generally favored nuclear energy.

The results of the poll suggest that Switzerland's phase out policy is not fully supported by the Swiss people. Some 73% want Switzerland to be able to produce all of its electricity (75% in 2012), while 78% do not want federal policies to lead to Switzerland being more dependent on other countries. Some 88% of respondents said that the country's energy transition must not endanger its security of supply, up from 84% in previous year.

The Swiss love referenda, so this will probably come to a vote at some point – two earlier votes to close nuclear plants, in 1990 and 2003, failed. And the plants are not scheduled to close until 2035, so there’s plenty of time to reverse a hasty decision. I’m not sure I’d put money on a German reversal – whatever might seem the smart thing to do – but I might on the Swiss. Heads are already cooling there.

* Welles may have written the cuckoo clock speech himself – I’m not sure that old dispute has been cleared up. It says something about its potency that it has multiple claimants.

Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
"The results of the poll suggest that Switzerland's phase out policy is not fully supported by the Swiss people."

Well, no, that is sufficiently understated to be called false. The results of the poll are that the Swiss government's phase-out announcement went directly against the will of the people.
January 28, 2014 at 4:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more